Provenance

Previous I discussed the douchebaggery thats been going on the past few years within vintage watch collecting circles (http://www.spazz.com/opinion/all-in-the-details-my-ass). This has been highlighted by “watch experts” online and beyond via comments such as “it’s all in the details”. Details that more often than not refer to elements of a watch that offer no real substance, but rather have had their “substance” artificially manufactured by the horologically ignorant simply looking for something (in this case a watch) to display their affluence or status in the world.

This phenomena also seems to be most prevalent with watches than with other collectables. For example, cars too are going through the roof! But at least when a Ferrari GTO sells for $34 million it can be (somewhat) justified not just because it is now rare or has provenance, but also because it was a damn good race car that blew its competition away. In other words, substance.

And that was going to be a nice segue into directing the value and effect of provenance until I read this: http://go.spazz.com/1ECuTQt

At least the article references an “Albino” Daytona that once belonged to Eric Clapton (provenance), but I’d like to focus more on the money than just the provenance. 

According to the article, this watch will not only hit $1million at auction, it *should* hit $1 million.

And thats when I lost it.

How does a watch, in this case the Rolex Daytona ref.6263, already overpriced at $30,000 suddenly be worth 30-times more simply because this one has an all-white dial?

According to the “expert who really knows about high end watch collecting” doesn’t think its because it used to belong to Eric Clapton alone (which would have been dumb enough), no he believes its more because it’s only 1 of 3 or 4 ever made, and *that* is apparently what makes it such an exceptional watch.

In other words it’s rarity.

NOT the movement.

NOT the proportions of the reference (which happen to be perfect in my opinion).

NOT ANYTHING of actual substance.

He even goes so far as to blur “rare” and “quality” together.

News Flash!.. those are not the same thing. And you can have one without the other.

But even though it’s never mentioned in the article or anywhere else for that matter, the real reason this watch will bring $1million is because of said stupid articles.

Stupid because they too have little to no substance. 

But what they do have is the power of speech and influence, and the Auctioneers know this.

People (a.k.a. watch douchebags) that perpetuate this B.S. know how to sell it to you using well written words. They know for the most part people lack any kind of serious critical thinking, and use what’s often referred to as “language intelligence” (also the title of a great book you can “and should” buy - http://go.spazz.com/1FSocZj ).

They repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat… and when they’re sick of repeating their crap, they repeat and repeat it some more until we’ve all been thoroughly brainwashed.

Just read the comments at the bottom of the article if you don't believe me. At the time of this post there were only a few replies, but notice how each poster was only too happy and too excited to stroke the author because they wanted to be a watch douchebag too.

One poster even suggested that the Patek 130 referenced in the article was exactly the kind of Patek that should be worth $1 million, more so than the "stick-it-in-a-glass-case-complications that show the moon phases on Jupiter”. 

No, those watches are for chumps! 

Because God knows watches that take eons to make, filled with complications that marvel the mind, made by watchmakers that are rarer every day without the use of electronics are essentially useless and overpriced. Only simple time-only versions that anyone can make, but are rare because they’re made in stainless steel, and even though thats a lesser valued material than gold or platinum (which is fine), it's a material Patek hardly uses, therefore it “hit the spot”, and surely is worth, or “should be” worth $1 million.

Put another way, it made sense and was applauded that the Patek that shares more characteristics with a $50 Seiko 5, and not the one-of-a-kind that no-one-else-can-even-come-close-to-making Patek be worth $1 million.

Are friggin kidding me?

Seriously!

Are we, as a human race, and as watch enthusiasts in general that friggin stupid?

Sadly, given not just the articles on these supposed “watch expert” sites, but the comments that follow as well, and the results from auction houses around the world, the answer is an emphatic yes!

We are all a bunch of watch idiots!