Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lotus's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Ron's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts