Q: What's the "right" number for limited editions?

I thought I'd "provoke" some discussion by raising a question about so-called limited editions. No market research is intended, and I think we might all enjoy learning what everyone's views are. My thoughts are provoked by the Cousteau Aquatimer, and its popularity.

Way back when, I used to think that a limited edition had to be truly limited to be special: perhaps 100 of any watch produced in series. But then the Jubilee Portugieser came along in 1993, in an edition of 2000 among all the metals. And that watch was a sell-out from day one, and probably a lot more could be made. Even today, finding one on the secondary market takes some time --and prices seem to be constantly escalating.

Fast forwarding to 2004, the Cousteau Aquatimer is a great hit, and very much an in-demand watch. It is a "limited edition" of 1953, but they're still hard to find. Resourceful and avid collectors, like Richard, have had to wait patiently. The secondary market has zoomed the watch to a premium.

So perhaps --for the right watch, at least-- a limited edition of 1953 is way too small. Or perhaps it doesn't matter --the issue is not one of exclusivity or rarity, but a great watch is a great watch.

Yet I also recall another watch company that in 2003 made a special edition watch only for its collectors. It had a special case and dial, and was in an edition of 200. You had to get approved by the President of the company to buy one. There was a huge demand, and the watch quickly "sold out" even though some of the recipients had to wait a long time to receive theirs. People talked about that watch for a long time, and the exclusivity was part of what made that watch so special.

Any thoughts here? Is there a right number? Or doesn't it matter? Or does it matter differently based on the situation. Should some watches be limited and not others? If so, how limited? Should IWC do more limited editions or less?

Regards,
Michael

It depends upon the underlying story

My first reaction: it depends upon the story behind the number. If the story is great, the number is right. E.g. the number 1953 refers to the year Cousteau laid the foundation for modern diving (if I'm correct).

IWC should keep its editions limited. The term "limited edition" should remain exclusive. These days everything gets a "limited edition" stamp, even cars!

Just a quick reaction.

Great question. I am curious what others think.

Regards, Peter

I would propose an edition of 450

With 250 in SS, 125 in Rose Gold and 125 in regular Gold. I would go first class on the band in alligator or croc.

I would say some hundreds, but few

Let's say around 500 as a maximum.
I think is a good balance between a not so high R&D unit cost, and a quantity that can be managed as really "limited".

ZKV

depends on the model and...

if it's for a dealer or country. When it's an international limited I think 1500 is max (like the jubilee). Dealer/Country limiteds max 100.

Hope to find some more limiteds!

Martijn

I can appreciate two types of limited editions

First, a truly exclusive piece with less than 300 units made that is very difficult to obtain even upon its initial release. Most of IWC's Limited Editions in this category are further limited by geography, e.g., the Pisa Port or the "Japanese" Doppel.

Second, a less exclusive but still limited piece (2000 or less). In this category I would place both the 1993 Jubilee, the Spitfire Mark XV and the Cousteau.

Both of these categories have special designs and are not unreasonably priced compared with non-limited versions. Notably, most of IWC's recent "limited editions" actually fall in a third category -- high priced pieces in platinum or with special complications (e.g., platinum 5001, platinum BP, Port Minute Repeaters). Given their higher price (and thus lower demand) I don't truly view these as truly "limited editions."

With respect to the first category, I think such watches can be lots of "fun" because of their exclusivity and because they are potentially obtainable by persons without huge bank accounts -- thus sparking the interest of IWC collectors around the world and maybe converting a few non-IWC collectors along the way. I've always dreamed that IWC would release, maybe every other year, a series of 200 new Portugiesers with the cal. 982, with each series featuring a different dial style based on vintage Ports and/or IWC's pocket watches of yore.

That said, I think an issue as relevant as the number of watches in any particular limited edition, is the number of limited editions. Many companies produce multiple "limited editions" every year and these quickly dilute one another rather than being viewed by the public as special. I think IWC has done a good job in this regard and I'd hate to see limited editions become a key focus of the company (as it has for some others).

Great topic!

David

For me, always a source of concern ...

Hi MF,

I've been around long enough now to see a proliferation in limited editions and many, in my opinion, add no additional value beyond their non-limited bretheren. In one instance, I was very pleased to acquire a beautiful piece limited to 250 pcs, only to see it a year or two later offered as a catalog item with only the slightest of changes. I still love the watch, but it left an impression.

In the case of the Jubilee, it had true provenance and was not only limited, but defining as well (or perhaps re-defining). I think few true LEs can stake that claim, but they should at least try and impart something other than just a cosmetic difference.

In the case of the Cousteau, it appeals to me for reasons other than its limited availability. For me, it is more of a "departure" watch from a company that has maintained a real and genuine history of classic designs, and I also like the fact that it honors a truly great man. Some would say this is silly of course, but it still appeals to me. It also contains some serious engineering not available elsewhere. In short, this watch is simply different, and not just cosmetically different. The fact that there is a relatively small number might just be icing on the cake, but I would have bought it anyway.

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that for me, substance is more important than quantity, and if a watch is to be truly "limited", it should provide something beyond that of mere cosmetics.

T

Completely agree

with your last paragraph.

I would hate to see IWC releasing "limited editions" in whatever numbers year-in-year-out. They don't become significant items but just another marketing ploy.

Cheers from the cellar

Q: What's the "right" number for limited editions?

David Ter Molen has made the right statements to my opinion.For a limited series there are a few conditions.
1.the watch should be attractive specifically for collectors,not typically for the average buyer.
2.There must be "a story".Think of the Cousteau,the history,the aquatimer story,the inscription on the back etc.
3. The number of pieces is difficult to determine.In the case of the Cousteau( I am lucky to have one),I would have paid its double or triiple price if the possibility to get one would be more limited,for instance if the total number would be not 1953 but 50.
4.The objective difference between a limited series and the normal unlimited production is sometimes only the inscription on the dial.Still that one word of difference whether this is "Pisa" or "Saab" or "Prada" can make the difference.
Let us look to the differences between the Cousteau and the not limited Aquatimer Automatic.
The size,the price,the case and the movement are the same.OK the dial is very different but what would have happend if IWC had decided tomake the Aquatimer Automatic the limited Cousteau with inscription on the back and in reverse the now existing Cousteau as an unlimited series.This is my guess:Collectors would be eager to buy the limited Automatic.Furthermore they would say that the"orange"watch is also splendid but as it is unlimited the time would come to buy one later.
I think the same is happening to the steel 5001 Portugieser which is loved by most of us but which is on the priority list a little lower because it is NOT limited.Still the watch is a hit as also not collectors are fond of it.Many things in live are very subjective!
Regards,
Adrian.

I can agree that...

...sometimes a "limited edition" run of a 1000 or 2000 seems pretty large - especially when there are some "unlimited" pieces such as the Deep One which, until discontinued yielded just a few hundred pieces. A very desireable watch.

I like the "appropriate" and significant number of the 1953 editions of the Cousteu. Otherwise, I would also like to be an owner of a watch that fewer than 50 other people own.

50 or 100 seem like reasonable limited edition volumes.

Depends on materials used and market the limited >

edition is being marketed to. But, in general to a global market at least 1000. Otherwise, it's a tease that only a handful of all collectors will ever see.

Cheers from Isobars.

I figured you would have said 24 (nt)

Q: What's the "right" number for limited editions?

A limited edition is in my perception limited when the production consists of a maximum of 500 pcs.
The exact figure depends on the model, material and price range. I agree with the above posters that the “reason” for issuing the limited edition makes a big difference (I personally do not like limited editions for other brands such as the “IWC for Prada” ) Furthermore I would restrict the limited editions to one limited serie per year (a special box would be a nice to have).

Regards,
Stefan

It depends on the reason for the Limited Edition..

The Cousteau was perfect at 1953. That number has some significance.

The Jubilee was heavy at 1000, 500 and 250, as was the Port 2000, but they did sell out.

The special engraved collector's edition watch at 200 was a marketing coup. Their collectors (and I am one) were very proud to be part of a very small circle of die-hard enthusiasts, hand picked by the brand president himself. More than 200 and it would have polluted the significance, perhaps even 100 would have heightened the experience.

Like Terry Russell, it is frustrating to see brands come out with LE after LE, when there is really nothing limited at all.

Keep LE's very special and rare, and they'll be snatched up by enthusiasts such as those who frequent this board. Make them mundane (and common) and they'll be only interesting to the masses who do not understand what a REAL limited edition is.

Limited editions

I own an ORIS limited edition watch and the story is what drove the quantity behind the Jazz great Charlie Parker. I own another that is limited but not by quantity but by time frame. Meaning the watch was only made during their 2004 pruduction year, regarless of the quantity. Demand should factor into the total number of watches created. People with deep pockets want very low numbers some even want it spread out based on the base metal of the case, but I would love to see IWC make a resonably priced watch that is made only for a specified time frame and then the total number is published some way. Pipe dream I know but I can still dream. My perfect example of this would be the 125th anniversary Wempe Aviator I think it was called. It was a perpetual calendar with chronograph. Black dial white markings crammed into a 42.5 mm dopplechronograph case, but it is a single chrono not a split second or dopple. IWC made 125 for Wempe. Wempe is a major jeweler in Germany that celebrated it's 125th anniversary in 2003. Way to few for me even to remotely find one. MF graciously provided a picture that can be found in the archives. Wonderful combination of perpetual calendar with a pilot's watch.

Q: What's the "right" number for limited editions?

What would DeBeers say?

Richard, It's not nice to think, what Dr. Isobars>

might say. There are some nice 12h designs ;-)

Cheers from Isobars.

There has to be a point

There has to be a point at which a limited edition steps over the production line and is not truly limited. And there has to be a point to a limited edition. And there has to be a market. WIthout all 3, then it's an ego rash.

I read recently about a Japanese department store that sold a limited edition of 300 Omega Speedmasters. Outside of a white dial, there was nothing that said limited edition or numbered the edition or "marked" the watch as anything special other than a special order. But it was perfect for the market. Japanese watch afficionados (and their international brethren) jumped all over the watch because it was limited even without any identification, but the secondary market has not been kind to these watches.

Some watches are limited to very small numbers because they have significance (Tag/McLaren) or the materials are very difficult to produce (Jaquet Droz Paillonnee) and others have significance in their numbers (Cousteau).

So if IWC were thinking of a limited edition, there would have to be more questions asked before a number could be determined.

I think the opinions expressed by many today constitute the basics of a good marketing discussion.

One of the interesting side notes of the manufacturer who did the limited edition of 200 was that the watches were sold directly from the manufacturer to the collector. Speaking to a couple of dealers, they felt "cut out" of the equation.

However, the buzz that the watch generated was huge in the collector community. Owning one became a badge of honor among collectors, so to speak.

Larry