I spent much of last week and the weekend taking deep breathes. The reason for this was the latest Phillips Geneva Watch Auction where the extremely famous “Bao Dai” Rolex 6062 was going to be auctioned off. Among “Rolex Collectors”, this was apparently the best of the best. Some very prominent Rolex collectors have even been quoted as saying if there was just one Rolex they could own, this would be the one. So, the obvious question is what’s the big deal about *this* Rolex?

The reference as mentioned is a 6062. It's the last moon phase Rolex ever made until this year when they introduced a new moon phase movement as part of their Cellini collection. But, this particular 6062 is one-of-a-kind. It's the only one in 18k yellow gold that has a black dial and diamond indices. Thus, making it as rare is it gets, which is one of the 3 main rules of collecting vintage watches. Apparently, there are no records of a second watch just like this one. There are other 6062’s, some in stainless steel, other gold ones too, but only one with a black dial *and* diamond indices.

“A fool and his money are soon parted.”

That is a famous proverb that seems to be the foundation of the marketing used by watch brands today. In other words, for better or worse, despite the absolute fact that watches are machines, tools, instruments of time, etc., watch brands want us to view and judge watches subjectively like jewelry. This is how you end up with gold dive watches, for example, and people foolish enough to buy them.

Every year we have our "new year's resolutions", but given the holiday season has just ended, which is always filled with the standard commercialism and retail therapy, I thought it might be worthwhile to give my perspective on the subject. Specifically when we refer to a certain type of spending as "materialism" - this ties in nicely with the watch world, since 2016 was officially the worst year on record since the early 80's!

First, what is materialism?

I am literally beside myself when I browse around online, or happen to stumble upon conversations regarding watches by so called “experts”. The amount of junk thats out there dressed up as fact, when in reality is nothing more than some self-perpetuation prophecy designed to mold and shape public opinion in a particular direction is sickening.

It’s as if over time everything has been turned on its head. What used to be considered important is now less so and vice versa. A whole new formula has been created and passed around, which is then used by those receiving this “advice” against their own interests.

At Spazz.com we call those responsible Horological Douchebags (“HDs”). They don’t want you to think for yourself using logic, but rather they want you to trust them blindly. They’ve “been there”, so they "know of the mistakes" they don’t want you to make (wink wink).

But you still have a brain, don’t you?

Today, a convenient summary!

I think the following summary, in chart form should be a lot of fun. And as you will see, it makes it real easy to visualize alternative combinations. I.e., if you prefer the Calatrava to the Reverso, cool. In your personal chart/list, you could just swap them, and it'd still make sense...

This is the category where only the best of the best can participate.

If you're a watch company and do not have a watch in this category, you are not a top-tier watch brand. Period.

You may make no-nonsense, reliable, tough, even beautiful looking watches. But to be even considered part of the truly top-tier, you must have a watch in this category.

Of course, what makes it so hard to compete in this category are the technical requirements in general. And this is why only the best of the best compete. It's the category, in other words, that really does separate the men from the boys.

It's been a long time since I felt that IWC was on target as far as makers of true worthwhile watches. I'd say it was roughly 2002 that things started to teeter. Right when they stopped making the classic dial on their Doppelchronograph and swapped it for the Spitfire variation. 

To me, it felt like around that time all they've done is rest on their laurels and prostitute themselves for the sake of making money.

That's not to say there haven't been some good work along the way. Just think of the movement inside their Scafusia. One of only a couple companies that even attempted to solve constant force.

But outside of that, their watches continued to grow in size, continued to look gimmicky, and continued to move farther and farther away from what once made them great.

SIHH is winding down, and as usual, there are always some nice things to see.

This year, to my surprise, a couple watches really excited me, perhaps even surprised me. I'd like to discuss those in particular, understanding these two watches are not the only worthwhile watches this year at SIHH.

The first, is more of a collection revamp to me, and it was by IWC.

I've been a fan of IWC for nearly two decades now, but there was a definite turing point for me once Richemont took full control. What was once a very simple, minimalist no nonsense company making serious watches with serious in-house innovations, suddenly became a watch for Hollywood, and started pimping itself out.