I agree with everyone that it’s impossible to truly predict what will become collectible. I believe the broader history of an era will play a significant role. For instance, the year 2020, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the surge in social media hype, would undoubtedly be fascinating in 50 years, as it would have spawned watches designed to capitalize on that trend. From the Eric Wind site in 50 years: “honest condition Moonswatch in desirable Neptune theme. Bioceramic appears unpolished. Comes with original hook-and-loop fastener strap. We do not know its service history but it is running well”
I read that although Pre-1970’s vintage Cartier were bespoke and handmade, that these watch cases have hollow air gaps (so as to save on gold) are more fragile to dents and knocks, most movements don’t have shock-protection, albeit that these watches and movements were finished with a little more quality.
Although the watch nerd in me might find pre-1970’s Cartier romantic, personally I think a 70’s Tank LC collection (and any mechanical Cartier up to around ~2000) scratches the itch without me having to worry about paying a premium for what is essentially an museum artifact that is even more susceptible to humidity, shock and damage, and keeps poor time (Auro Montanari said he doesn’t even wear his old Cartier because of this reason).
The Cartier 78-1 (ETA 2512 movement) might seem “cheap” or “lower quality” on paper, but they keep good time at 21,600 bpm, have shock protection, and are easily serviceable with parts readily available so you don’t need to have your watchmaker on speed dial…
At the end of the day, while Cartier watches certainly aren’t sports Rolex, I want to actually wear my vintage watches without worrying too much, and without having to become a museum curator.
interesting points, those old Cartier London/Paris watches do increasingly feel like antiques or 'museum artifacts,' as you say. i agree about the movement, though i'd still have some concerns about the durability of the case and dial on these 70s pieces. it getting stuck in one rain storm and seeing that crystal fog up for me to swear off my Tank 78086. that said, these are old dress watches, so perhaps the assumption is people know what they're getting and are wearing these watches accordingly.
edit to add: i do agree with you, which is why i don't recommend starting with this earlier cartiers!
Yeah even the 1970’s and Neo-Vintage Cartier watches aren’t really designed for humid or rainy weather. Back in the day (before widespread use of waterproof watches), there wasn’t a delineation between what is now called a “dress watch” and “sports watch”. People simply wore dress watches (the only watches readily available) as regular daily wearers and took them off or didn’t wear then when it was rainy or humid.
It wasn’t until post-WW2 improvements in manufacturing, technology, and more active lifestyles that people made a delineation between “dress watches” and “sports watches” and wore each watch accordingly for different activities.
Modern Cartier Tanks have larger (historically inaccurate) sizing, modern precision manufacturing tolerances, and are waterproof, but they are mass manufactured and definitely lose a bit of the romance of more handmade vintage watches. In the post-AI world, the charm of imperfect handmade objects will increasingly have more value since the world will only become “more perfect” which will be ultimately be more boring.
While the 1970’s-1990’s Tanks are still susceptible to the same vulnerabilities as earlier Cartier watches, the fact they have more serviceable movements, shock protection, keep decent time, and have completely solid gold cases while keeping the original 9 lignes sizing strikes a perfect balance such that the watches are historically accurate while actually being wearable and retaining a bit of vintage charm.
I'm with you on rarity and first wave of innovation driving interest in the future, and the question is what will be the desirability of manufactured rarity vs 'true' rarity and how those get defined. The hairspring guys did a nice job covering historical context with their Rolex glossary episode - collectors seem more than happy to manufacture rarity on their own, but that doesn't always drive value beyond the academic. I think authenticity, just as intangible a term as taste, will drive a lot of this. It will certainly continue to fuel what you called chasing of the unknown by debating things that cant ever actually be truly known. We saw it already here in the comments section with Berneron's intent or intentional story weaving around caliber driving form. I'm sure we will also see it with authenticity around finishing and what makes a true handmade product vs something mimicked.
The clear thing is that even with all the above landing, it needs to hit in a package that meets to the taste of the moment, and that's the intangible piece that we will just have to wait and see. Looking at a 1655 today I cant possibly understand how it wasn't seen as beautiful, and I'm sure there are some things today that will seem just as glaringly obvious with the benefit of hindsight. That's why its clearly better as a philosophical question, because to get it right means you won the game of speculation not the game of building a collection you like.
What if you like collecting things from both a speculative place but also only if it isn't a place that's purely driven on IG algorithm and trend? You might not have a big collection but it would certainly allow you to say no many times to a lot of watches!
i’ve been a watch-addict for almost 15 years now. starting out in my 20s meant i had to wait several years before i could start buying the good stuff, but i was still paying close attention to all the informed predictions about the “future of collecting”.
they were all wrong. not one “expert” predicted integrated-bracelets would become the hottest genre in watches. not one “tastemaker” foresaw journe turning into a cult.
the only educated guess that turned out to be right was that rolex will always be number one. fifty years from now, rolex will still be number one. the best advice you can give someone starting out today is to invest in a relationship with a rolex ad, and start buying new rolexes. do that year after year, and fifty years from now, you’d be sitting on the mother lode.
I’ve been wearing my 36mm green enamel model 2 a ton (it’s also my only sport watch). I’ve been tempted to pick up the black. IMO - great field watch that’s still interesting to look at.
I’ve been wearing my 36mm green enamel model 2 a ton (it’s also my only sport watch). I’ve been tempted to pick up the black. IMO - great field watch that’s still interesting to look at.
who knows what new stuff they'll come out with by the time my slot comes up, but that's the watch I had a sample of a few years ago that made me buy a slot on the waitlist. it's great
Thanks for bringing to our attention that AnOrdain Model 2 Porcelain and the details behind it. You offer a compelling case to pay attention to this specific model and the brand as a whole.
"Even the “AnOrdain” wordmark is hidden in the minute track above 12 o’clock. I wish more brands had the self-confidence to eliminate unnecessary text."
Because I'm crankier than usual while battling the flu, I'll remind us all of my comment on that issue which touches on unnecessary text:: "OYSTER PERPETUAL SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED COSMOGRAPH DAYTONA SWISS MADE."
(And with this Rolex bashing off my chest, my congestion and other ailments should soon disappear.)
-"What do you think could be the motivators for collecting this current generation of watches in 50 years."
This is a question that provides an interesting heuristic for collectors. Should we judge our acquisitions based on the likelihood they will be desirable to the next generation of collectors? Each of us have different motivations, and I wouldn't apply this standard to my purchases.
If we are simply doing a thought experiment, I'll go on to say I cannot confidently state that any of my current generation watches will be desirable in 50 years.
The only ones in my collection that might pass that test are the ones already 100 years old, e.g. c.1905 pocket watch minute repeater chronograph, and a Longines c. 1915 wrist watch chrono, perhaps the first wrist watch to house a chronograph. The Lindy effect strikes again.
Among the watchmakers you list, I would vote for MB&F as being the most likely to be collectible in 50 years. To the list I would add DeBethune. My determinant here is that for a watch to be collectible in 50 years it must be part whimsical art, and part an extraordinary engineering marvel.
Max and friends meet the criteria set in your masterful sentence: "In an era defined by optimization and scale, the slightly awkward, underdeveloped, or misunderstood watch may end up feeling the most real."
"If we are simply doing a thought experiment, I'll go on to say I cannot confidently state that any of my current generation watches will be desirable in 50 years."
i would say you're doing it right! it's a fool's errand to try to predict what'll happen in 5, much less 50 years. and if someone is buying a watch hoping it'll be collectible in a generation, they're missing the point!
Adding to this conversation: How will the broad range of Microbrands be valued in 50 years from now? I generally do not consider most brands as highly collectible and grey market often offer huge discounts. We obviously see some „misunderstood“ watches from these brands today, but I doubt that they will stand the test of time and probably only turn into a footnote in the history of watch making?
yes, i generally agree. most of these brands will not survive, most will not be 'collectible,' generally speaking (where there is a meaningful number of collectors chasing them and a market forms around them). perhaps a few will, but they will be the vast exception.
perhaps an interesting question: what will be the line between 'microbrand' and 'indie'? i assume most indies of today will also not survive and not be super collectible, but some will?
surely i've mentioned before but i have very mixed feelings about 'microbrands.' on the one hand, good for them, some bring fresh designs, i like many of the people behind them, and have bought my fair share. OTOH: None feel durable, many chase trends, and i'm not sure i've ever bought one that's stayed in my collection for more than a year or so...
Interesting question - I would assume that as long as indies focus more on technology vs design / trends on the microbrand side, chances to survive are higher by today’s means; i.e. assuming that in 50 years from now mechanical watches and craftsmanship are still higher ranked compared to flashy designs + Sellita movement.
Looking at this, probably Grand Seiko - not an indie tough - will become highly collectible bringing spring dive technology, craft and design while not yet being easily available at globale scale?
I agree with everyone that it’s impossible to truly predict what will become collectible. I believe the broader history of an era will play a significant role. For instance, the year 2020, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the surge in social media hype, would undoubtedly be fascinating in 50 years, as it would have spawned watches designed to capitalize on that trend. From the Eric Wind site in 50 years: “honest condition Moonswatch in desirable Neptune theme. Bioceramic appears unpolished. Comes with original hook-and-loop fastener strap. We do not know its service history but it is running well”
comment of the year ☠️ 🤣
I read that although Pre-1970’s vintage Cartier were bespoke and handmade, that these watch cases have hollow air gaps (so as to save on gold) are more fragile to dents and knocks, most movements don’t have shock-protection, albeit that these watches and movements were finished with a little more quality.
Although the watch nerd in me might find pre-1970’s Cartier romantic, personally I think a 70’s Tank LC collection (and any mechanical Cartier up to around ~2000) scratches the itch without me having to worry about paying a premium for what is essentially an museum artifact that is even more susceptible to humidity, shock and damage, and keeps poor time (Auro Montanari said he doesn’t even wear his old Cartier because of this reason).
The Cartier 78-1 (ETA 2512 movement) might seem “cheap” or “lower quality” on paper, but they keep good time at 21,600 bpm, have shock protection, and are easily serviceable with parts readily available so you don’t need to have your watchmaker on speed dial…
At the end of the day, while Cartier watches certainly aren’t sports Rolex, I want to actually wear my vintage watches without worrying too much, and without having to become a museum curator.
Just my two cents…
interesting points, those old Cartier London/Paris watches do increasingly feel like antiques or 'museum artifacts,' as you say. i agree about the movement, though i'd still have some concerns about the durability of the case and dial on these 70s pieces. it getting stuck in one rain storm and seeing that crystal fog up for me to swear off my Tank 78086. that said, these are old dress watches, so perhaps the assumption is people know what they're getting and are wearing these watches accordingly.
edit to add: i do agree with you, which is why i don't recommend starting with this earlier cartiers!
Yeah even the 1970’s and Neo-Vintage Cartier watches aren’t really designed for humid or rainy weather. Back in the day (before widespread use of waterproof watches), there wasn’t a delineation between what is now called a “dress watch” and “sports watch”. People simply wore dress watches (the only watches readily available) as regular daily wearers and took them off or didn’t wear then when it was rainy or humid.
It wasn’t until post-WW2 improvements in manufacturing, technology, and more active lifestyles that people made a delineation between “dress watches” and “sports watches” and wore each watch accordingly for different activities.
Modern Cartier Tanks have larger (historically inaccurate) sizing, modern precision manufacturing tolerances, and are waterproof, but they are mass manufactured and definitely lose a bit of the romance of more handmade vintage watches. In the post-AI world, the charm of imperfect handmade objects will increasingly have more value since the world will only become “more perfect” which will be ultimately be more boring.
While the 1970’s-1990’s Tanks are still susceptible to the same vulnerabilities as earlier Cartier watches, the fact they have more serviceable movements, shock protection, keep decent time, and have completely solid gold cases while keeping the original 9 lignes sizing strikes a perfect balance such that the watches are historically accurate while actually being wearable and retaining a bit of vintage charm.
I can’t guess which of today’s watches will be the most sought after in 50 years - but have confidence that none of my watches will be 😂.
I'm with you on rarity and first wave of innovation driving interest in the future, and the question is what will be the desirability of manufactured rarity vs 'true' rarity and how those get defined. The hairspring guys did a nice job covering historical context with their Rolex glossary episode - collectors seem more than happy to manufacture rarity on their own, but that doesn't always drive value beyond the academic. I think authenticity, just as intangible a term as taste, will drive a lot of this. It will certainly continue to fuel what you called chasing of the unknown by debating things that cant ever actually be truly known. We saw it already here in the comments section with Berneron's intent or intentional story weaving around caliber driving form. I'm sure we will also see it with authenticity around finishing and what makes a true handmade product vs something mimicked.
The clear thing is that even with all the above landing, it needs to hit in a package that meets to the taste of the moment, and that's the intangible piece that we will just have to wait and see. Looking at a 1655 today I cant possibly understand how it wasn't seen as beautiful, and I'm sure there are some things today that will seem just as glaringly obvious with the benefit of hindsight. That's why its clearly better as a philosophical question, because to get it right means you won the game of speculation not the game of building a collection you like.
What if you like collecting things from both a speculative place but also only if it isn't a place that's purely driven on IG algorithm and trend? You might not have a big collection but it would certainly allow you to say no many times to a lot of watches!
i’ve been a watch-addict for almost 15 years now. starting out in my 20s meant i had to wait several years before i could start buying the good stuff, but i was still paying close attention to all the informed predictions about the “future of collecting”.
they were all wrong. not one “expert” predicted integrated-bracelets would become the hottest genre in watches. not one “tastemaker” foresaw journe turning into a cult.
the only educated guess that turned out to be right was that rolex will always be number one. fifty years from now, rolex will still be number one. the best advice you can give someone starting out today is to invest in a relationship with a rolex ad, and start buying new rolexes. do that year after year, and fifty years from now, you’d be sitting on the mother lode.
I’ve been wearing my 36mm green enamel model 2 a ton (it’s also my only sport watch). I’ve been tempted to pick up the black. IMO - great field watch that’s still interesting to look at.
I’ve been wearing my 36mm green enamel model 2 a ton (it’s also my only sport watch). I’ve been tempted to pick up the black. IMO - great field watch that’s still interesting to look at.
who knows what new stuff they'll come out with by the time my slot comes up, but that's the watch I had a sample of a few years ago that made me buy a slot on the waitlist. it's great
Thanks for bringing to our attention that AnOrdain Model 2 Porcelain and the details behind it. You offer a compelling case to pay attention to this specific model and the brand as a whole.
"Even the “AnOrdain” wordmark is hidden in the minute track above 12 o’clock. I wish more brands had the self-confidence to eliminate unnecessary text."
This calls to mind your issue "Watches are too literal" https://www.unpolishedwatches.com/p/watches-are-too-literal
Because I'm crankier than usual while battling the flu, I'll remind us all of my comment on that issue which touches on unnecessary text:: "OYSTER PERPETUAL SUPERLATIVE CHRONOMETER OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED COSMOGRAPH DAYTONA SWISS MADE."
(And with this Rolex bashing off my chest, my congestion and other ailments should soon disappear.)
-"What do you think could be the motivators for collecting this current generation of watches in 50 years."
This is a question that provides an interesting heuristic for collectors. Should we judge our acquisitions based on the likelihood they will be desirable to the next generation of collectors? Each of us have different motivations, and I wouldn't apply this standard to my purchases.
If we are simply doing a thought experiment, I'll go on to say I cannot confidently state that any of my current generation watches will be desirable in 50 years.
The only ones in my collection that might pass that test are the ones already 100 years old, e.g. c.1905 pocket watch minute repeater chronograph, and a Longines c. 1915 wrist watch chrono, perhaps the first wrist watch to house a chronograph. The Lindy effect strikes again.
Among the watchmakers you list, I would vote for MB&F as being the most likely to be collectible in 50 years. To the list I would add DeBethune. My determinant here is that for a watch to be collectible in 50 years it must be part whimsical art, and part an extraordinary engineering marvel.
Max and friends meet the criteria set in your masterful sentence: "In an era defined by optimization and scale, the slightly awkward, underdeveloped, or misunderstood watch may end up feeling the most real."
Great issue. Many thanks.
"If we are simply doing a thought experiment, I'll go on to say I cannot confidently state that any of my current generation watches will be desirable in 50 years."
i would say you're doing it right! it's a fool's errand to try to predict what'll happen in 5, much less 50 years. and if someone is buying a watch hoping it'll be collectible in a generation, they're missing the point!
oh, agree re DeBethune and MB&F
Adding to this conversation: How will the broad range of Microbrands be valued in 50 years from now? I generally do not consider most brands as highly collectible and grey market often offer huge discounts. We obviously see some „misunderstood“ watches from these brands today, but I doubt that they will stand the test of time and probably only turn into a footnote in the history of watch making?
yes, i generally agree. most of these brands will not survive, most will not be 'collectible,' generally speaking (where there is a meaningful number of collectors chasing them and a market forms around them). perhaps a few will, but they will be the vast exception.
perhaps an interesting question: what will be the line between 'microbrand' and 'indie'? i assume most indies of today will also not survive and not be super collectible, but some will?
surely i've mentioned before but i have very mixed feelings about 'microbrands.' on the one hand, good for them, some bring fresh designs, i like many of the people behind them, and have bought my fair share. OTOH: None feel durable, many chase trends, and i'm not sure i've ever bought one that's stayed in my collection for more than a year or so...
Interesting question - I would assume that as long as indies focus more on technology vs design / trends on the microbrand side, chances to survive are higher by today’s means; i.e. assuming that in 50 years from now mechanical watches and craftsmanship are still higher ranked compared to flashy designs + Sellita movement.
Looking at this, probably Grand Seiko - not an indie tough - will become highly collectible bringing spring dive technology, craft and design while not yet being easily available at globale scale?
i've talked with others about this, i think early spring drive stuff from grand seiko and credor are undervalued given historical importance!
Which size AnOrdain?
sorry, 36mm, on my ~6.5in wrist! also added to article