Depreciation in the watch choosing process

[Dempsey1971]

I have a few higher end watches (2 - 8k range). When I was looking for a new one, the depreciation the watch would suffer just did not enter the buying decision process.

I looked first at design (did I like the way it looked, would it suit me, would it be comfortable) and price (can I afford it!!). Next I looked at technical specification (movement, complications, chrono or not, diver etc etc), then brand and heritage (did I 'respect' the brand / heritage / history), then availability (can I actually get one).

This was because I always assume when I buy a watch I will keep it forever. I do not plan on moving it on. The decision making process is long and arduous, and involves many many hours on the net, many trips to dealers (if possible), forums, reviews, flip flopping on the decison between several possibilities, and finally a lunge across the line with my credit card.
In fact, sometimes the decisioon process is as much of a joy as the owning and wearing!!

Anyway, I digress. At no point in this joyful process does the idea of depreciation come into it. I see various comments, particularly around rolexes (rolii?) about deprecition when advising people on what to buy.

So, how big a part in the buying process does depreciation (or appreciation) play for you? Will it sway your decision, or is it a happy chance by-product of your choice?

[Miguel Alvarez]

Kind of does and doesn't. The way I look at it is if the st hits the fan am I left with a paper weight or will I have a few hundred/thousand to keep the wolf from the door?

But I do love/like the stuff I buy so it's only a passing thought. Most of the things that will tank completely do nothing for me.

[Gio G]

I think if a watch keeps it's value, that is an added bonus. However my decision to purchase what I have is purely down to how it looks/functions and makes me feel about the product.

You sometimes know that buying new is probably not the most economical way of owning something, however watches are generally kept for a longer period of time and often passed down, therefore depreciation is not always top of mind.

If we did all become obsessed with depreciation, we would all be wearing Rolex..

G

[sparkyhx]

if depreciation was ever a major factor, there would be Rolex and second hand watches only.

[yeti]

Miguel Alvarez said:

The way I look at it is if the st hits the fan am I left with a paper weight or will I have a few hundred/thousand to keep the wolf from the door?

This ^^

I always buy pre-owned for this very reason, depreciation is far less of a factor. I also rarely buy to 'keep', mostly just to try out these days. If something stays then I really like it, and that's good! There is though, as with the nature of all collections, one I like the least... and that is always the first to go!

[longblackcoat]

yeti said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

The way I look at it is if the st hits the fan am I left with a paper weight or will I have a few hundred/thousand to keep the wolf from the door?

This ^^

I always buy pre-owned for this very reason, depreciation is far less of a factor. I also rarely buy to 'keep', mostly just to try out these days. If something stays then I really like it, and that's good! There is though, as with the nature of all collections, one I like the least... and that is always the first to go!

Whereas mine are always kept, even the ones I don't like quite as much as some others. It's nice to know that there's theoretically a chunk of value sitting in the sock drawer, but unless I actually sell any of them they're not doing me any good!

Edited to add: bizarrely, though, I'd not buy a watch I knew to be a horrific depreciator unless it cost £100 or so. Even though I never realise the gain or loss, it would pain me to know I'd just dropped £2k on a watch.

Edited by longblackcoat on Wednesday 18th February 15:59

[Miguel Alvarez]

This has got me thinking about my collection past and present and only one watch (if you discount the sub £100 stuff) has shocked me when it came to trade in time. That was my Zenith. I wasn't expecting it to appreciate but some offers shocked me. It would make me think twice about buying that brand again with exception of an El Primero.

I possibly bought the wrong watch though for flipping which could explain it.

[hilly10]

yeti said:

This ^^

I always buy pre-owned for this very reason, depreciation is far less of a factor. I also rarely buy to 'keep', mostly just to try out these days. If something stays then I really like it, and that's good! There is though, as with the nature of all collections, one I like the least... and that is always the first to go!

.
+1

[longblackcoat]

Miguel Alvarez said:

This has got me thinking about my collection past and present and only one watch (if you discount the sub £100 stuff) has shocked me when it came to trade in time. That was my Zenith. I wasn't expecting it to appreciate but some offers shocked me. It would make me think twice about buying that brand again with exception of an El Primero.

I possibly bought the wrong watch though for flipping which could explain it.

Yep, Zenith are a brand I've never bothered with and that's one of the reasons. Corum are another brand which fall into that category, but in all honesty I dislike the look of their watches so much that the horrific depreciation is just the icing on the avoidance cake.

[Miguel Alvarez]

longblackcoat said:

Yep, Zenith are a brand I've never bothered with and that's one of the reasons. Corum are another brand which fall into that category, but in all honesty I dislike the look of their watches so much that the horrific depreciation is just the icing on the avoidance cake.

Haha Corum are a bit of an acquired taste.

[michael gould]

i have never purchased a new watch (edited....except for ones costing less than £50)....which is probably why I have just sold 2 Vacherons 1 Rolex 1 Patek and made a small profit on all 4 of them.......as an old mate of mine in the motor trade said to me many years ago "buying new is for rich people or fools" the same goes for watches. (IMHO.......ish)

Edited by michael gould on Thursday 19th February 11:19

[marcosgt]

It's not, but I don't spend as much as you (but, possibly, I do, relatively )

I buy watches I like - It doesn't matter if they're new or used, modern or vintage, manual or electronic (automatic/handwind/quartz/hummers all have a place in my collection).

Generally, though, I tend to buy used as I can get better VFM and I rarely browse ADs or websites of watch companies, so I tend to see what other people have. The few I have sold (I'm a terrible hoarder) have gone for about what I paid - no gain, no pain

Currently after a Steinhart Ocean Black after seeing some photos online and suspecting I'll be buying new as they don't seem to come up used too often and are fairly affordable (although something else will go to pay for this one I think).

M.

Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 19th February 11:25

[michael gould]

It is all about VFM ....I have had the privilege to own some loverly tickers but there is no way I could afford the depreciation of new ones.....like many on here, I get bored after a couple of years and move them on .....with that in mind, I am always thoughtful of the resale value when buying a watch. Even if you intend to keep a watch for ever, buying a couple of years old could save you 30% and would be hard to distinguish from new. In the case of a TAG a 2YO old watch would offer 95% saving (or at least it should do )

[Dempsey1971]

michael gould said:

It is all about VFM ....I have had the privilege to own some loverly tickers but there is no way I could afford the depreciation of new ones.....like many on here, I get bored after a couple of years and move them on .....with that in mind, I am always thoughtful of the resale value when buying a watch. Even if you intend to keep a watch for ever, buying a couple of years old could save you 30% and would be hard to distinguish from new. In the case of a TAG a 2YO old watch would offer 95% saving (or at least it should do )

I kind of see where you are coming from, but the general concensus here seems to be that watches beyond a certain value are really jewelry for men, not actual timepieces. That's not to say they dont tell time, just that the exepense is hard to justify if that's all you want it for.
As such, why do you chose a watch based on VFM, rather than what you love. I would chose a watch that may lose a fortune, but I love it and want it and would wear it, rather than a watch that kept it's value. When I bought my wifes engagement ring, it was based on what she lovbed, not on VFM.

[Quinny]

Miguel Alvarez said:

Haha Corum are a bit of an acquired taste.

Bought a corum for £900.......sold it 3 years later for £1800........

[michael gould]

Dempsey1971 said:

michael gould said:

It is all about VFM ....I have had the privilege to own some loverly tickers but there is no way I could afford the depreciation of new ones.....like many on here, I get bored after a couple of years and move them on .....with that in mind, I am always thoughtful of the resale value when buying a watch. Even if you intend to keep a watch for ever, buying a couple of years old could save you 30% and would be hard to distinguish from new. In the case of a TAG a 2YO old watch would offer 95% saving (or at least it should do )

I kind of see where you are coming from, but the general concensus here seems to be that watches beyond a certain value are really jewelry for men, not actual timepieces. That's not to say they dont tell time, just that the exepense is hard to justify if that's all you want it for.
As such, why do you chose a watch based on VFM, rather than what you love. I would chose a watch that may lose a fortune, but I love it and want it and would wear it, rather than a watch that kept it's value. When I bought my wifes engagement ring, it was based on what she lovbed, not on VFM.

I'm not sure I see your point........you can buy a £1000 watch 2YO as new for £600 thats VFM why pay the £1000 ? just as you can buy a £10,000 for £6000 2 years old. I also don't agree that it's the "general consensus here" that a watch beyond a certain value are really jewellery for men.......you can buy an excellent time piece for £100 so are all watches beyond that price Jewellery. I suppose everybody has a different prospective about value for money about most things

[marcosgt]

ALL watches are jewellery for men...

M.

[michael gould]

marcosgt said:

ALL watches are jewellery for men...

M.

I think you probably right......it's the only piece of Jewellery i would wear......i don't have a wedding ring for example

[Miguel Alvarez]

Quinny said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

Haha Corum are a bit of an acquired taste.

Bought a corum for £900.......sold it 3 years later for £1800........

Fair play. I said it half in jest. I do like the Admiral cup model they did.

Which one was it you had?

[marcosgt]

michael gould said:

marcosgt said:

ALL watches are jewellery for men...

M.

I think you probably right......it's the only piece of Jewellery i would wear......i don't have a wedding ring for example

Snap.

M