i am sick of secondary market “analysis”. it’s everywhere you look, from blogs to substack to youtube.
it was genuinely interesting two years ago, when we needed confirmation that the hype-era phenomenon of prices increasing every week had well and truly come to an end. but we know that by now, everyone with any sense knows that there is very little chance their watch will be worth more in the near future.
people consume this “analysis” for one reason and one reason alone: they’re waiting to hear that they can walk into an ad and buy a desirable steel rolex. and they still can’t buy one. if the price goes down by 0.867% next quarter, they still won’t be able to buy one. what is the point of all this talk then?
there is a lot of good reporting being done now (mostly by you tony), but secondary pricing is not news.
While 20% buyer’s premium is not as high as the traditional auction houses that charge 25-30%, there is still no clear competitive edge when compared to smaller online auctions such as loupethis which is only 10%. Let’s simplistically consider the psychology of auctions. As a seller, my focus wld be to find the auction house that can help me jack up the prices to the highest possible prices that will make me feel good with a reasonable seller’s fee. As a buyer, my focus will be to look for bargain deals and the thrill of bidding to get the watch that I really want, and the satisfaction that I am the winner to that “fine and rare” timepiece.
Would 3% watchmaker contribution move me to put my watch with the auction house? Maybe yes, maybe no because I’m not an indie enthusiast (yet). But if the buyer’s premium for indie watches is 17% instead of 20% compared to the big brands, then yes, maybe I might consider placing a bid because I am more motivated by price rather than the romance of supporting the brand.
Yes I agree. The main pitch is targeted at doing right by watchmakers which is great, but buyers and sellers are, in the end, self interested. That said I hope it works if for no other reason than competition is good
So that 3% to the watchmakers works like a royalty to authors and musicians? However the difference is that the watches are not patented like books and songs, other auction houses don’t have to do that for the grey market independent brands. Without a large number of listings for some meaningful profits, there is no competitive advantage for Marteau. The format is basically to pay respect to the indi brands, what’s more there? How can it survive for the long run?
agree it's a difficult business. in the end, the pitch that it's for the good of indie watchmaking only goes so far. People are self-interested and want the most $$ for the watch they're selling (I believe that the watchmaker probably wants this too, in the long run). They'll need to deliver better *results* for indie watchmakers than any other house, otherwise they'll have a tough go of it.
Chopard is just firing on all cylinders right now in general and doesn’t get enough love; the new Lunar One is stunning after the first couple iterations were frankly somewhere between confusing and hideous.
And it seems like unlike a certain Parisian behemoth, having the next generation getting involved (Karl-Fritz) is a very good thing…
Fully agree on the cleanup…still some randoms in there, and some pricing decisions I dislike (the $110K platty alpine eagle…) but the 1860, Lunar One, Quattro, even the AE 8hf SL (that just rolls off the tongue…speaking of branding decisions) all slap and don’t get enough kudos.
What’s also been cool is watching some of the higher-end finishing bleed into even the lower-end MM watches — the JX7 in particular had a lot of very nice touches on the dial.
Will also say, I can only attest to the NYC boutique, but after dealing with the utter bullshit at ALS, AP, Rolex, etc., they are a delight to deal with, so the company culture also seems to be way healthier.
I’m keen to see how Marteau does - more focus on independent and small brands has to be a good thing. I’m generally supportive of brands getting some money when their watches do well at auction, tho I’d be nervous if that eventually pushes up the prices for collectors, given a lot of watches are already quite expensive. I know it’s notionally coming out of the Buyers Premium, but at the end of the day the customer pays for everything in the overall price paid.
A lot of independents already do quite well in their selling prices, so a more interesting model would be to give a larger cut to the watchmaker of anything above the price they originally sold the piece for - although of course that gets harder to administer and is probably impractical. But it would serve to help say a watchmaker who sold initial pieces cheap when they weren’t well known recoup some value, vs the higher-profile launches who have pretty punchy prices already.
your idea is interesting. one of the reasons I am, in general, skeptical of the idea of an "artist's resale right" for watches is that watchmakers still have many ways they can realize the benefit of their secondary market rising (which aren't always open to traditional artists), even though not directly. Your idea helps to address this.
i am sick of secondary market “analysis”. it’s everywhere you look, from blogs to substack to youtube.
it was genuinely interesting two years ago, when we needed confirmation that the hype-era phenomenon of prices increasing every week had well and truly come to an end. but we know that by now, everyone with any sense knows that there is very little chance their watch will be worth more in the near future.
people consume this “analysis” for one reason and one reason alone: they’re waiting to hear that they can walk into an ad and buy a desirable steel rolex. and they still can’t buy one. if the price goes down by 0.867% next quarter, they still won’t be able to buy one. what is the point of all this talk then?
there is a lot of good reporting being done now (mostly by you tony), but secondary pricing is not news.
While 20% buyer’s premium is not as high as the traditional auction houses that charge 25-30%, there is still no clear competitive edge when compared to smaller online auctions such as loupethis which is only 10%. Let’s simplistically consider the psychology of auctions. As a seller, my focus wld be to find the auction house that can help me jack up the prices to the highest possible prices that will make me feel good with a reasonable seller’s fee. As a buyer, my focus will be to look for bargain deals and the thrill of bidding to get the watch that I really want, and the satisfaction that I am the winner to that “fine and rare” timepiece.
Would 3% watchmaker contribution move me to put my watch with the auction house? Maybe yes, maybe no because I’m not an indie enthusiast (yet). But if the buyer’s premium for indie watches is 17% instead of 20% compared to the big brands, then yes, maybe I might consider placing a bid because I am more motivated by price rather than the romance of supporting the brand.
Yes I agree. The main pitch is targeted at doing right by watchmakers which is great, but buyers and sellers are, in the end, self interested. That said I hope it works if for no other reason than competition is good
O wow thanks for including my comment, glad it was helpful! I think Unpolished is definitely achieving it.
So that 3% to the watchmakers works like a royalty to authors and musicians? However the difference is that the watches are not patented like books and songs, other auction houses don’t have to do that for the grey market independent brands. Without a large number of listings for some meaningful profits, there is no competitive advantage for Marteau. The format is basically to pay respect to the indi brands, what’s more there? How can it survive for the long run?
agree it's a difficult business. in the end, the pitch that it's for the good of indie watchmaking only goes so far. People are self-interested and want the most $$ for the watch they're selling (I believe that the watchmaker probably wants this too, in the long run). They'll need to deliver better *results* for indie watchmakers than any other house, otherwise they'll have a tough go of it.
Chopard is just firing on all cylinders right now in general and doesn’t get enough love; the new Lunar One is stunning after the first couple iterations were frankly somewhere between confusing and hideous.
And it seems like unlike a certain Parisian behemoth, having the next generation getting involved (Karl-Fritz) is a very good thing…
i agree, they're slowly cleaning up the entire LUC catalog. Some of them still look a bit like fashion watches, but they continue to improve.
I've been lucky to meet K-F a couple times, he seems to be humble, grounded, interested in learning the business.
Fully agree on the cleanup…still some randoms in there, and some pricing decisions I dislike (the $110K platty alpine eagle…) but the 1860, Lunar One, Quattro, even the AE 8hf SL (that just rolls off the tongue…speaking of branding decisions) all slap and don’t get enough kudos.
What’s also been cool is watching some of the higher-end finishing bleed into even the lower-end MM watches — the JX7 in particular had a lot of very nice touches on the dial.
Will also say, I can only attest to the NYC boutique, but after dealing with the utter bullshit at ALS, AP, Rolex, etc., they are a delight to deal with, so the company culture also seems to be way healthier.
I’m keen to see how Marteau does - more focus on independent and small brands has to be a good thing. I’m generally supportive of brands getting some money when their watches do well at auction, tho I’d be nervous if that eventually pushes up the prices for collectors, given a lot of watches are already quite expensive. I know it’s notionally coming out of the Buyers Premium, but at the end of the day the customer pays for everything in the overall price paid.
A lot of independents already do quite well in their selling prices, so a more interesting model would be to give a larger cut to the watchmaker of anything above the price they originally sold the piece for - although of course that gets harder to administer and is probably impractical. But it would serve to help say a watchmaker who sold initial pieces cheap when they weren’t well known recoup some value, vs the higher-profile launches who have pretty punchy prices already.
your idea is interesting. one of the reasons I am, in general, skeptical of the idea of an "artist's resale right" for watches is that watchmakers still have many ways they can realize the benefit of their secondary market rising (which aren't always open to traditional artists), even though not directly. Your idea helps to address this.
I liked Arthur’s open letter on the Marteau website, though, so I’m interested to see how this develops
Agreed