Investing in a family heirloom watch - some guidance please

54and56

Hi all,

I want to invest in a watch which I can pass to my son and hopefully down the line over a few generations if it is well looked after and if my son, grandson and great grandson etc all respect the watch. I'm in my mid 40's so I'm planning to wear the watch for the first 20 years until my now 10 year old son reaches 30.

I would like the watch to be:-

- Mechanical movement
- Classic styling
- Predominantly stainless steel (or similar) body and bracelet
- Something which can be worn daily but still looks smart when worn with a business suit or at formal occasions.
- RRP no greater than €7,500

Having researched the market I quickly zoomed in on the following brands as offering the qualities I want - Cartier, Omega, Rolex & Patek Philippe and having looked at the ranges offered by each the Rolex GMT model # 116710LN is the watch which appeals to me the most and by a significant margin.

I'm off to the US in July and am open to the idea of buying a watch there of the $ price converts to a significant saving (at least 10%) over the equivalent price from Weirs in Dublin or Lunns in Belfast. My preference is to buy local but as the aforementioned manufacturers provide international warranties and servicing I'll buy in the US if I can save €500 or more.

As this is a major investment and something I'm going to be hoisting upon my son and hopefully grandson at some point in the future I'd really appreciate the input of people here who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I as this is a once off purchase for me.

Thanks in advance.

CarltonBrowne

Quick one - does the watch have to be new?

54and56

No I guess not but as I'm buying it to be kept in the family etc I like the idea of it being within the family from new. Unless a good quality used was 30% or more less than new I'd probably plumb for new.

gerfmurphy

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

No I guess not but as I'm buying it to be kept in the family etc I like the idea of it being within the family from new. Unless a good quality used was 30% or more less than new I'd probably plumb for new.

If I was you I would look at vacheron Constantine they have a few wonderful pieces and are top class. It may be 2nd hand market at that price but I can pint you toward an AD who is very helpful knowledgable and U.S. Based

Wibbs

I'd go for the Rolex myself. OK doesn't have the Vacheron levels of finishing and nowhere near the Patek level and they are bit commonplace, even a cliche, but that can work too and they're built like a brick poohouse, near guaranteed to hold their value and are at this stage a timeless design and although a "tool watch" can also work as a "dress watch", or have come to be seen as one. If a new one is within your budget that's what I'd be going for anyway. I'd avoid Cartier myself. Over priced "fashion watches" these days, IMH anyway. Nice women's watches but not men's. Omega make lovely pieces but are quite commonplace so… Patek make a gorgeous watch, but I dunno which models would be close to your budget in the new market.

gerfmurphy

Agree re Cartier. They have in house manufacture but it's package is a jewellery item. (IMHO you can t beat them for a ladies)
Agree also on the premise of Rolex.
Wise words from wibbs well worth considering

bren2002

Strong recommedation for the Rolex GMT. A good friend has one and its a cracker. I've an Omega Planet Ocean myself, another really fine watch.

As options can I suggest a Speedmaster Professional or have you looked at IWC, go down to Paul Sheeran for a look.

54and56

Thanks very much guys, really appreciate the feedback. Had a look at the Vacheron Constantine models and they are amazingly elegant but probably a bit too elegant (if that's the right term) for me with the exception of the "Overseas" collection which catch my eye. Do I recognise those from being popular on the wrists of football managers and pundits?

I guess what I'm trying to say is my personal preference is for something "weighty" which is robust and bulletproof in terms of daily rough and tumble. The Vacheron Constantine models (excluding the Oversea's collection) all look like they need careful minding.

This Overseas model is nice looking but way out of my budget range - http://www.chrono24.com/en/vacheronconstantin/overseas-chronograph-49150b01a-9745--id3326895.htm?urlSubpath=/vacheronconstantin/index.htm&manufacturerIds=252.

I do like the Omega's and the Speedmaster Professional is a lovely looking watch but I think if I had a choice between that and a GMT II I'd go for the GMT II. TBH I'd like both!!!

Thanks for the suggestions etc guys, truly appreciated.

Any thoughts on buying local Vs in the US assuming I'm buying new from an AD in both locations? My logic is it's only worth going US (or UK) is if I'm saving at least 10%/€500.

bren2002

You should be able to 10% discount in Dublin by asking.

fret_wimp2

Choice of the word "Investment" is interesting. Do you want the watch to be worth more financially in 20 or 40 or 60 years?

Generally speaking watches are an exceptionally poor investment. there are a few exceptions, and if you really know the industry you can make money but for the average Watch Idiot Savant, if you get into this hobby to make money you will be grossly disappointed.

Watches like a new rolex or omega, although beautiful and luxury items will most likely not appreciate in financial value due to the sheer quantities of them you see about the place. I dont think i go more than a week without seeing a rolex in public. Thats not putting the brands down, its a testament to their success, but it means they are not rare and unless they are a special limited edition, or a super old & rare edition, simply wont appreciate in fiscal value.

If by investment you mean you want to have a watch that will stand the test of time, then really, just take your pick. Almost anythig with an ETA movement will do this, you just got to pick one that suits the style you are after.
ETA are a super common movement, guaranteeing that there will be spares for it for many decades to come.

You could say the same about seiko, even a base model with a 7s26 movement, you will pick up an skx007 for less than 150 euro. it looks beautiful on bracelet, is not out of place with a suit or at a formal occasion, and is automatic. It is also built like a tank, will work for years without servicing and common enough that spare parts will be about for decades. Will stand the test of time just as well as a 7.5k watch.

Im not saying dont go for something expensive, but dont think that because you have 7.5k you need to spend it all, or that if you get an expensive watch, it will go up in value by a significant degree, if by anything.

Cyrus

You won't see an overseas on a typical footballer you are mixing them up with hublot

Most modern vc and all modern patek are out of budget, I'd go with a Rolex sub personally , the polished centre links of the gmt won't age as well

54and56

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Choice of the word "Investment" is interesting. Do you want the watch to be worth more financially in 20 or 40 or 60 years?

No, not worth more but something which will be valuable/collectable in the long run, not for financial return but so the people it is passed onto will appreciate it, take care of it and most importantly of all, wear it daily/frequently. (might be a bit vain of me but that's the idea)

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Generally speaking watches are an exceptionally poor investment. there are a few exceptions, and if you really know the industry you can make money but for the average Watch Idiot Savant, if you get into thsi hobby to make money you will be grossly disappointed.

If by investment you mean you want to have a watch that will stand the test of time, then really, just take your pick. Almost anythig with an ETA movement will do this, you just got to pick one that suits the style you are after.
ETA are a super common movement, guaranteeing that there will be spares for it for many decades to come.

You could say the same about seiko, even a base model with a 7s26 movement, you will pick up an skx007 for less than 150 euro. it looks beautiful on bracelet, is not out of place with a suit or at a formal occasion, and is automatic. It is also built like a tank, will work for years without servicing and common enough that spare parts will be about for decades. Will stand the test of time just as well as a 7.5k watch.

Im not saying dont go for something expensive, but dont think that because you have 7.5k you need to spend it all, or that if you get an expensive watch, it will go up in value by a significant degree, if by anything.

The only reason I'm thinking of investing up to €7,500 is to mark the item as a valuable family heirloom which will be looked after.

When I hand it over to my son I'll replace it with something like the Seiko you mention which I'd be more than happy to wear daily, I've always admired them actually.

Do you think future generations will be into watches as much as those of the past? Personally I stopped wearing a watch three years ago and haven't missed it. The e-generation have a multitude of ways of telling the time so a watch isn't an essential wearable anymore, just a piece of jewellery.
A beautifully crafted timepiece, either from the mechanical or aesthetic perspective should hopefully be appreciated, but just be aware that it might not be worn anything as much as in the past.

54and56

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think future generations will be into watches as much as those of the past? Personally I stopped wearing a watch three years ago and haven't missed it. The e-generation have a multitude of ways of telling the time so a watch isn't an essential wearable anymore, just a piece of jewellery.
A beautifully crafted timepiece, either from the mechanical or aesthetic perspective should hopefully be appreciated, but just be aware that it might not be worn anything as much as in the past.

I agree with the central point but conversely I believe good watches will become even more appreciated and sought after as they are no longer required to perform as our main source of timing and become (for most guys) our principal/only opportunity to wear some jewellery.

fret_wimp2

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think future generations will be into watches as much as those of the past? Personally I stopped wearing a watch three years ago and haven't missed it. The e-generation have a multitude of ways of telling the time so a watch isn't an essential wearable anymore, just a piece of jewellery.
A beautifully crafted timepiece, either from the mechanical or aesthetic perspective should hopefully be appreciated, but just be aware that it might not be worn anything as much as in the past.

There will always be a subset of people who will wear and enjoy wrist watches.
For the most part watches are overpriced peices of antiquated functional jewellery. Thats a fact im comfortable with, and instill spend more than necessary on watches. many have replaced them with their phone but even so, many people enjoy wearing them for a multitude of reasons.

Personally I love the fact that theres a little spring powered engine on my wrist, working away that doesnt require anything more than a winding or wrist movement. I love the accuracy in spite of, and because of the complexity, i also enjoy the fact that most people just dont get it, it makes it that little bit more special for me, and when you talk to someone who does get it.

Other people enjoy the status symbol of a luxury piece, the rarity of a piece and we all enjoy the fact that despite having been made obsolete, we still can use it daily to tell the time. Obsolete but no useless.
in the case od the OP, having aworking item thst ties you to your father and/or grand father, that they used, that was part of thir life is another reason watches will never disappear.

893bet

May I suggest you don't get hung up on the brand or the price. Obviously you are looking for a highish end item. So look at all your options.

Buy a watch you truely love. Try on a few. Use all the ADs to have a browse as things look different on the wrist.

Also if it's your first high end watch don't buy new. I think it takes a while you develop your taste for what you really like. Buy second hand, flip it if needs be, try a few and enjoy each one and then you may land on the one your treasure and you want to pass on.

gerfmurphy

Also if it's your first high end watch don't buy new. I think it takes a while you develop your taste for what you really like. Buy second hand, flip it if needs be, try a few and enjoy each one and then you may land on the one your treasure and you want to pass on.[/quote]
I agree with you on this but it's a very dangerous and potentially expensive path.
As everyone here knows what seems outrageous in price year one somehow seems to be justified all to quick after a bit. Starting with a few k may get the op into deep water very quick.

mad m

Also just a word on buying in U.S.. My brother in law lives in U.S. , he currently buys watches here over the phone, gets a discount plus tax back, it's dearer over there than here because of the exchange rate.

54and56

Cyrus wrote: »

I'd go with a Rolex sub personally , the polished centre links of the gmt won't age as well

Forgive the ignorance but what exactly are the "centre links"? I googled the term but can't find a definition. Is it a trade term for the hour and minute hands?

Wibbs

I reckon C is talking about the middle bits of the metal strap.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think future generations will be into watches as much as those of the past? Personally I stopped wearing a watch three years ago and haven't missed it. The e-generation have a multitude of ways of telling the time so a watch isn't an essential wearable anymore, just a piece of jewellery.
A beautifully crafted timepiece, either from the mechanical or aesthetic perspective should hopefully be appreciated, but just be aware that it might not be worn anything as much as in the past.

It's an interesting thought Dr. Hard to say, but if we step back from the huge growth in the last 20 years of the luxury mechanical wristwatch, it's a bit of an outlier. We're in the middle of it now, but how long will it last?

Go right back to the 18th and 19th centuries and the silver cased(more rarely gold) pocket watch was the heirloom and money substitute/personal savings object of the masses. The most common object to show in old pawn shop ledgers is a silver pocket watch(and pawned by men and women). One of the most commonly stolen items too. It was usually the most valuable single item an average person owned. Today the same pocket watches unless incredibly rare top end items are not exactly valuable and are left in the back of drawers and so many were stripped of their cases for the precious metal(ebay has thousands of old PW movements coming along every week).

More recently in the 80's say, the digital and quartz were king and "luxury" mechanical watches were few and far between(and much cheaper too), the gold Rolex being a Del Boy and Arthur Daley type item. If this or any other watch forum had been around in 1982 the notion that spending many thousands on an "old style watch" would have been very much the minority view. Though again Rolex would have had some legs. Patek and Vacheron and such like would have been nigh on unknown. IWC, who?

In twenty years time? Who knows. I suspect the market will contract and become more specialised. As it stands even now, the vast majority of watches bought in the world run off batteries. The smart watch if and when the current issues are ironed out and it gets most of the market might have a large impact.

TL;DR? again I'd be advising a Rolex as they've consistently remained the "coca cola" of recognition of watch brands in the general public perception over the last 40 years, so are likely to be the most "future proof" as both a monetary investment and a wearable heirloom.

hi5

How about the Rolex Explorer 11, basically the same as the GMT 11 but without the revolving bezel, which in my opinion makes it a little more dressy and less bulky but with the same heavy duty case.
I have one with the white dial since 1998 and love it, still as good as the day I bought it.:)

54and56

Wibbs wrote: »

I reckon C is talking about the middle bits of the metal strap.

Ah, gothcha. I actually like the two tone effect the polished centre links being to the GMT II.

54and56

hi5 wrote: »

How about the Rolex Explorer 11, basically the same as the GMT 11 but without the revolving bezel, which in my opinion makes it a little more dressy and less bulky but with the same heavy duty case.
I have one with the white dial since 1998 and love it, still as good as the day I bought it.:)

Beautiful watch indeed and I can see how it remains smart looking almost 20 years on. My personal preference however is the GMT II, aesthetically I like the black face and the contrast of the black ceramic bezel plus I travel a lot so like the idea of one watch being able to track the time in 3 locations simultaneously. I know there are phone apps for that and it's not exactly hard to do a + or - a few hours calculation in your head but it's relevant to my life.

54and56

Another watch I really like the look of is the Panerai Luminor http://www.panerai.com/en/collections/watch-collection/luminor but I think they look best with a leather strap and I want something which has a metal/stainless steel strap. I know you can get Panerai's with steel bracelets but I don't think they look as good.

Cyrus

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Ah, gothcha. I actually like the two tone effect the polished centre links being to the GMT II.

It looks nice for a few days but then it starts to get shabby as it shows scratches very quickly

gerfmurphy

panerai are great watches imho, took me years to really get them but converted me to a Single(kinda) watch person
its the one watch to rule them all!
strap choice is just endless they have braclets but they are not as popu;lar.
limited edition are very sought after, the only issue is getting one, they have a particular idea of supply and demand

Wibbs

I like Panerai, though way too bulky for my twig wrists, however and this is just my personal opinion here, I do think that Panerai are somewhat like TAG Heuer were in the 90's/early noughties. They've moved into TAG's position as the "luxury watch" with mass appeal. I don't think their design will date nearly as much as a 90's TAG which were/are very much of their time, but do think they're more faddy than a long term classic.

54and56

Wibbs wrote: »

I like Panerai, though way too bulky for my twig wrists, however and this is just my personal opinion here, I do think that Panerai are somewhat like TAG Heuer were in the 90's/early noughties. They've moved into TAG's position as the "luxury watch" with mass appeal. I don't think their design will date nearly as much as a 90's TAG which were/are very much of their time, but do think they're more faddy than a long term classic.

Wise words there Wibbs, thank you.

My motivation is to acquire something which will stand the test of time and be classic enough to still be worn in 50 - 75 years time.

I'm finding it hard to justify anything other than the GMT II. As sar as I can see it ticks all my purchase criteria:-

- Mechanical movement - yes
- Classic styling - yes - IMHO anyway
- Predominantly stainless steel (or similar) body and bracelet - yes
- Something which can be worn daily but still looks smart when worn with a business suit or at formal occasions. - yes, again IMHO
- RRP no greater than €7,500 - yes - just about

Mmmm, I think my mind is made up, I'm going to invest in one of these!!



Thanks for the input guys, you made me re-evaluate my thinking and I'm glad to say having challenged my initial thought process I'm happy that the GMT II is the best fit for the criteria I have.

Cheers.

gerfmurphy

Wibbs wrote: »

I like Panerai, though way too bulky for my twig wrists, however and this is just my personal opinion here, I do think that Panerai are somewhat like TAG Heuer were in the 90's/early noughties. They've moved into TAG's position as the "luxury watch" with mass appeal. I don't think their design will date nearly as much as a 90's TAG which were/are very much of their time, but do think they're more faddy than a long term classic.

I gotta say I would have agreed with you on this at one time but not now.
Panerai is the best watch I have owned in my opinion.
I don't want to go off on a tangent to the original post so won't elaborate too much.
Je suis Jean all the best with your purchase.

Wibbs

Oh god don't get me wrong G, they're a very nice quality piece of kit*, I just meant in my humble they're more a fashion of the now kinda thing.






* though derided in some quarters today so were 90's TAGs for that matter. Plenty still out there happily ticking away.

gerfmurphy

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god don't get me wrong G, they're a very nice quality piece of kit*, I just meant in my humble they're more a fashion of the now kinda thing.


sorry if I appeared in anyway short, I just did not want to dribble on about my opinion of panerai on someone else's tread
its all a personal thing, and for me its the best watch i have owned.

54and56

gerfmurphy wrote: »

I gotta say I would have agreed with you on this at one time but not now.
Panerai is the best watch I have owned in my opinion.
I don't want to go off on a tangent to the original post so won't elaborate too much.
Je suis Jean all the best with your purchase.

Hi Ger,

If I was just purchasing a watch for myself and not factoring in what future wearers of the watch might like/not like I may well have gone for the Luminor 1950 Black Dial Automatic as I think it's stunning but I'm trying to cover a number of bases not just my own personal preference so I think the GMT II is more likely to continue to be "classic" looking in the long term whereas the Luminor may look more dated (not necessarily a bad thing) in 20-50 years time.

No right or wrong answer and please feel free to take the thread in whatever direction you wish as I've gotten what I wanted from it.

If I happen to fall into a spare €7,000 in a year or two I might justify putting the GMT II into safe keeping (on an automatic winder) for my successors whilst I slum it with a new Luminor. Best of both worlds.

54and56

Maybe I should take a trip to La Chaux-de-Fonds http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150504-where-the-worlds-most-expensive-watches-are-made before finalising my decision

Cyrus

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Hi Ger,

If I was just purchasing a watch for myself and not factoring in what future wearers of the watch might like/not like I may well have gone for the Luminor 1950 Black Dial Automatic as I think it's stunning but I'm trying to cover a number of bases not just my own personal preference so I think the GMT II is more likely to continue to be "classic" looking in the long term whereas the Luminor may look more dated (not necessarily a bad thing) in 20-50 years time.

No right or wrong answer and please feel free to take the thread in whatever direction you wish as I've gotten what I wanted from it.

If I happen to fall into a spare €7,000 in a year or two I might justify putting the GMT II into safe keeping (on an automatic winder) for my successors whilst I slum it with a new Luminor. Best of both worlds.

Like this ?

54and56

Cyrus wrote: »

Like this ?

Yes, just a bit :cool: Looks really cool. If I could afford two serious watches I definitely think a Luminor (probably in black) would be my next buy.

steppen

If you're going new buy a submariner when your child is born. I bought myself a birth year sub when I got my first job.

Mredsnapper

Don't worry about scratches on the polished center links of the GMT they can always be brushed or polished when the watch is serviced. Lovely watch IMHO, infact I'd like one myself and I think your justification for purchasing is excellent[1] but I would agree with others that it would not be sensible to view any current new watch purchase as an investment or to assume that it will as valued in the future as it is in the present.

[1] Must explain to Mrs. Redsnapper that I have to do the same for my kids.

54and56

steppen wrote: »

If you're going new buy a submariner when your child is born. I bought myself a birth year sub when I got my first job.

Too late for something as symmetric as that, my kids are already into double digits!!

54and56

Mredsnapper wrote: »

I think your justification for purchasing is excellent[1] but I would agree with others that it would not be sensible to view any current new watch purchase as an investment or to assume that it will as valued in the future as it is in the present.

I'm using the term "investment" loosely. What I mean by the term is that the watch will be valued by the recipients as a high quality and functional keepsake rather than something whose financial value will increase. If the former happens I'll be happy. If the former and latter happen even better but if the former doesn't happen, the latter does and some great grand descendant decides to bring it to whatever the equivalent of Pawn Stars will be in 50 years time so he can have money to buy a nuclear powered smartphone I'll turn in my grave!!!

mad m

Was in Weirs today checking to see if my brother in laws watch was in. I was looking at Panerai watches, lovely watches. One had a strap buckle on it nearly the size of my belt buckle:D

Lex Luthor

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Too late for something as symmetric as that, my kids are already into double digits!!

Plural? Maybe you need more than one purchase then?

My 2 lads have already put a dibs on a watch each of mine...i think the best thing to do is find one with a dial that will still look good in many years to come....keep it simple and don't over think it too much

If it was me I'd have suggested something from Stowas marine range. These babies with the silver dials are going to stand the test of time

A 1938 chronograph and marine chronograph would leave you change for a nice holiday and a couple of great watches to boot

gerfmurphy

mad m wrote: »

Was in Weirs today checking to see if my brother in laws watch was in. I was looking at Panerai watches, lovely watches. One had a strap buckle on it nearly the size of my belt buckle:D

Some of them straps are big.

CarltonBrowne

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Maybe I should take a trip to La Chaux-de-Fonds http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150504-where-the-worlds-most-expensive-watches-are-made before finalising my decision

Yes, you should.
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?68950-Bienne-bugger!-Mais-La-Chaux-de-Fonds-c-est-formidable!