82gradDLSdad;842805234 said:

---

No, but Apple earpods are certainly killing the high-end earring market

---

$159 for their ear buds. $199 for their beat stuff. Absolute robbery.

Big C_Cal;842805195 said:

---

Santa* got me an Orient Blue Ray just last Christmas**, based on a thread here 1-2 years ago (thanks NYCGOBEARS and somebody else). Come to find out that there is a fairly large sub-culture of folks who are still into mechanical watches. Surprisingly large, including plenty of young people. Thing is, it's never going to be more than a sub-culture. Fifty years ago, it was everybody.

* My lil' kids still don't know "Santa" is actually me, so shhhhhhhh!

** Was I allowed to mention "the C word"? It just slipped out; I wan't thinking... Hey, well, the new Prez has got my back on this one thing.

---

The Orient Blue Ray is a great watch. I love mine.

Add another vote for someone who loves tech and mechanical watches both. I've owned each generation of the iPhone since it was introduced (the camera on the 7 + is amazing by the way) but I still have a good collection of quality mechanicals, including my great grandfather's gold (plated I'm sure) Waltham. Love that thing. I wrestle a bit though with the ultra-high end market. So the Patek Phillipe's, not the Rolexs. In Switzerland last summer I saw some amazing Pateks, but, as with all "luxury" items everyone has to decide where their line is. For some people a $1k watch would be an unthinkable waste of money. For others its $10k and for still others its $250k (or beyond). And for yet others, there is no limit. My iPhone tells time better than any watch, no matter how much it costs. It's always just a question of what is worth it "to you". One thing I know though. There will always be a market for these. It ain't about telling time.

burritos;842805032 said:

---

Digitial phones. Ipods(what was before Ipods?). CDs. Cell phones. The are examples where companies have for the most part evaporated from the face of the earth. Young people aren't buying high end analog watch en masse. No reason this trend will not continue. Do you have one of these?

---

I do. Well, I have a Tissot but it is a wrist watch.

burritos;842805168 said:

---

You don't have to pay $1000+ watch for it to last forever. I got my seiko for $100+ 17 years ago. Still works great. People compliment me on it. Maybe they are being polite. It looks like s shiny metally watch. I certainly am not fishing for compliments or envy. Maybe if I had paid $1000-$100,000 for it, I'd have some emotional investment in it. Compliments might well then affirm my decision to have spent a huge sum of money on it. Since I didn't, I just use it to tell time.

---

Yes there are plenty of quality watches in the low to mid range. Most of the time I wear a black Swatch that's nearly 30 year old and that still works great, I've replaced the wristband several times.

burritos;842805171 said:

---

That is great that your watch still works for you. I also appreciate the value of something lasting for a long long time. I wonder if one day in the near future if solar cells on the watch will be able to diminish or eliminate the need to charge. My scientific solar powered calculator built in 1987 still works great.

---

Sadly, my 1980s solar powered watch is long dead. I'm not sure that it lasted more than a year or two.

Sebastabear;842805262 said:

---

Add another vote for someone who loves tech and mechanical watches both. I've owned each generation of the iPhone since it was introduced (the camera on the 7 + is amazing by the way) but I still have a good collection of quality mechanicals, including my great grandfather's gold (plated I'm sure) Waltham. Love that thing. I wrestle a bit though with the ultra-high end market. So the Patek Phillipe's, not the Rolexs. In Switzerland last summer I saw some amazing Pateks, but, as with all "luxury" items everyone has to decide where their line is. For some people a $1k watch would be an unthinkable waste of money. For others its $10k and for still others its $250k (or beyond). And for yet others, there is no limit. My iPhone tells time better than any watch, no matter how much it costs. It's always just a question of what is worth it "to you". One thing I know though. There will always be a market for these. It ain't about telling time.

---

I apologize if the tone of my comments appeared hostile towards higher end analog watches. I have no doubt the high skill required to make these fine watches is very rare. And thus the pricing for these items may well be commensurately justified. And there still is purposeful functionality with these items(as opposed to say a diamond which aren't rare by the way).

If people appreciate these fine pieces of engineering/design and want to pay for them, good for them and all the gainfully and honestly employed people who work for the industry. As the frugal person that I am, I would not buy myself either the apple watch or a high end watch as neither seem worth it to me. But as I strolled through the apple store, seeing the apple watches being displayed, it got me to thinking. That's why I posted the observation. Seeing the responses here I think there will still be a continued demand for high end watches and that they will not go the way of the digital phone or blackberry any time soon.

burritos;842805278 said:

---

I apologize if the tone of my comments appeared hostile towards higher end analog watches. I have no doubt the high skill required to make these fine watches is very rare. And thus the pricing for these items may well be commensurately justified. And there still is purposeful functionality with these items(as opposed to say a diamond which aren't rare by the way).

If people appreciate these fine pieces of engineering/design and want to pay for them, good for them and all the gainfully and honestly employed people who work for the industry. As the frugal person that I am, I would not buy myself either the apple watch or a high end watch as neither seem worth it to me. But as I strolled through the apple store, seeing the apple watches being displayed, it got me to thinking. That's why I posted the observation. Seeing the responses here I think there will still be a continued demand for high end watches and that they will not go the way of the digital phone or blackberry any time soon.

---

I think you raised a fair question. And it's always just a question of demographics. I am by no means "young" so I'm probably not a good spokesperson for the future market. I just think wearable tech and luxury watches serve different niches. By the way, Apple sells a gold plated iWatch, but I've never seen anyone wearing one.

510Bear;842805024 said:

---

The idea that Apple will "kill" the high-end watch industry is an example of a specific type of overblown prediction I've always said people (both individuals and media) make way too often. It's no different from the predictions that online shopping would kill retail stores and that we'd all be using websites for 100% of our purchases by 2017.

It's a little more accurate to say Apple will probably take a bite out of high-end watch purchases, but that the segment of consumers who would pick a Rolex over Apple's shinest new toy isn't going away anytime soon, or ever.

---

Has costume jewelry diminished the desire for real jewels? Not if you asked my wife. There are watches for all ends of the consumer market. It's all part of relaxing the formality that preceded this generation. I recently attended a very expensive wedding where the bridegroom wore a tux with expensive tennis shoes. Go figure.

socaliganbear;842805026 said:

---

Cellini is my favorite watch to wear and an Apple Watch can't replace it because it's not a comparable product imo.

---

Great choice. I'm also a Cellini fan.

Son-of-California;842805206 said:

---

I love Apple and have most of their products...However, I will never give up my Rolex for any wrist gadget.

---

I have a Samsung watch and my Rolex always come before any other watch.

I think it was solid gold. At least the case. For $18,000. Sold most of them almost exclusively in China, if I remember. They had a limited order of the apple watch - not sure about apple watch 2 if they did that. I think you have to make an appointment to buy one of those.

82gradDLSdad;842805234 said:

---

No, but Apple earpods are certainly killing the high-end earring market

---

buda bump

I'd like to get someone's opinion on a watch. Recently, a friend bought a Richard Mille Tourbillion watch for some ridiculous price. It's one of those that allow you to see the inner workings of the timepiece. I personally don't like it. If I want the time I don't want to have to search the face of the watch in order to find the hands. Yet, people pay six figures for these watches. Am I in a minority here?

6bear6;842805317 said:

---

I'd like to get someone's opinion on a watch. Recently, a friend bought a Richard Mille Tourbillion watch for some ridiculous price. It's one of those that allow you to see the inner workings of the timepiece. I personally don't like it. If I want the time I don't want to have to search the face of the watch in order to find the hands. Yet, people pay six figures for these watches. Am I in a minority here?

---

Expensive watches are always an ostentatious display of wealth, status and taste. Some are way more ostentatious than others and display a taste that is not my own, such as the watch you mention.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6172[/ATTACH]

It's dead to me. I no longer wear a watch. I have some nice ones in the drawer. the phone does everything the watch did. No one would ever think of making that big an investment in something I would never use. If its purpose is an ostentatious display of wealth, it has a purpose. Otherwise, I don't see it. I suspect the niche will become smaller and smaller until the only examples are custom made for people with more dollars than sense.

But it won't be the Apple watch that kills Rolex. That doesn't have a future either. Built-in heads up display on my glasses will kill any need I have to look at my wrist for information.

burritos;842805248 said:

---

$159 for their ear buds. $199 for their beat stuff. Absolute robbery.

---

Watch it, buddy. Apple is one of the stocks allowing me to waste the rest of my life here on BI instead of having to go out and be productive

Go!Bears;842805326 said:

---

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6172[/ATTACH]

It's dead to me. I no longer wear a watch. I have some nice ones in the drawer. the phone does everything the watch did. No one would ever think of making that big an investment in something I would never use. If its purpose is an ostentatious display of wealth, it has a purpose. Otherwise, I don't see it. I suspect the niche will become smaller and smaller until the only examples are custom made for people with more dollars than sense.

But it won't be the Apple watch that kills Rolex. That doesn't have a future either. Built-in heads up display on my glasses will kill any need I have to look at my wrist for information.

---

My wife is complaining that I never wear my watches anymore. I used to really enjoy fine watches and have some very nice ones, but I have no need for them anymore.

6bear6;842805317 said:

---

I'd like to get someone's opinion on a watch. Recently, a friend bought a Richard Mille Tourbillion watch for some ridiculous price. It's one of those that allow you to see the inner workings of the timepiece. I personally don't like it. If I want the time I don't want to have to search the face of the watch in order to find the hands. Yet, people pay six figures for these watches. Am I in a minority here?

---

You're not in the minority. It's a small sub-niche. A conversation piece as much as a time piece? The argument "for" is that the movement is so amazing, it deserves to be seen.

BTW, my semi-credibility on this subject is that my father was a watchmaker (actually watch repairman, but they all often used the "watchmaker" job title). I grew up listening to the tuning fork hum of the occasional Bulova Accutron he would bring home.

Some quotes from my father (passed away in 2005):

Best watch? "Patek Philippe. The very best watchmakers decided to make the absolute best watch possible, regardless of cost. It is the watchmakers' watch." Would you like to own one? "Noooo... they cost a fortune." What if somebody gave you one? "I'd get top dollar for it and retire two years early."

Electronic/digital watches: "It's now possible to buy a $15 watch that keeps better time and is probably more robust than any $15,000 watch. I can't argue with progress! Glad to be retiring when I am... "

On why he bought me a fake Rolex when he visited some country in Asia (thus risking having his "watch aficionado" card revoked): "Sure it's a fake, but it's a GOOD FAKE! I must've talked to ten guys on the street before the eleventh took me to see somebody he knew for this one."

When asked, at retirement, if he was glad he had become a watchmaker: "No."

82gradDLSdad;842805330 said:

---

Watch it, buddy. Apple is one of the stocks allowing me to waste the rest of my life here on BI instead of having to go out and be productive

---

It too is one of the few stocks I continue to buy(in trace amounts). The few other stocks I buy also plunder mankind.

NYCGOBEARS;842805324 said:

---

Expensive watches are always an ostentatious display of wealth, status and taste. Some are way more ostentatious than others and display a taste that is not my own, such as the watch you mention.

---

I hesitate to disagree with you on taste-related matters, but I think you are leaving out the people who are just fascinated by tiny machines. When you're talking about Richard Mille, I mostly agree that it's about communicating your preferences but many high-end watch enthusiasts are driven by their appreciation for the pieces themselves.

My engineer/tinkerer side really enjoys watch movements and complications (for example, lange zeitwerk minute repeater, not that I would spend the cheddar to get one) and I don't have any interest in peacocking.

Big C_Cal;842805336 said:

---

You're not in the minority. It's a small sub-niche. A conversation piece as much as a time piece? The argument "for" is that the movement is so amazing, it deserves to be seen.

BTW, my semi-credibility on this subject is that my father was a watchmaker (actually watch repairman, but they all often used the "watchmaker" job title). I grew up listening to the tuning fork hum of the occasional Bulova Accutron he would bring home.

Some quotes from my father (passed away in 2005):

Best watch? "Patek Philippe. The best watchmakers decided to make the absolute best watch possible, regardless of cost. It is the watchmakers' watch."

Electronic/digital watches: "It's now possible to buy a $15 watch that keeps better time and is probably more robust than any $15,000 watch. I can't argue with progress! Glad to be retiring when I am... "

On why he bought me a fake Rolex when he visited some country in Asia (thus risking having his "watch aficionado" card revoked): "Sure it's a fake, but it's a GOOD FAKE! I must've talked to ten guys on the street before the eleventh took me to see somebody he knew for this one."

When asked, at retirement, if he was glad he had become a watchmaker: "No."

---

Like most well made, mostly handmade, things you have to have an appreciation for the work. I'm a woodworker and although I could never afford one I can understand why some buy Sam Maloof rockers for $20,000 (apparently one was auctioned for $80,000). The craftsmanship is amazing and they are beautiful. But you are paying a lot for the reputation. I will say that on the flip side a good young furnituremaker has trouble getting a price for what his pieces are actually worth (labor, skill, materials, shop overhead). I always laugh when people see stuff I've made and say, "you should start a business, you could sell that for $500". I say, "great, that would cover the wood cost"

burritos;842805344 said:

---

It too is one of the few stocks I continue to buy(in trace amounts). The few other stocks I buy also plunder mankind.

---

Apple stock is ridiculously cheap for a company that generates such enormous amounts of cash and such high returns on capital. And almost a third of the market cap consists of net cash (and cash equivalents) on the balance sheet.

But although we have multiple Macs and iPhones, I use the Fitbit, mainly because it can go for days without needing to be charged--unlike the Apple Watch.

cedarbear;842805348 said:

---

Apple stock is ridiculously cheap for a company that generates such enormous amounts of cash and such high returns on capital. And almost a third of the market cap consists of net cash (and cash equivalents) on the balance sheet.

But although we have multiple Macs and iPhones, I use the Fitbit, mainly because it can go for days without needing to be charged--unlike the Apple Watch.

---

I have no idea how accurate it is but we retired a Nike watch in favor of the health app on my wife's iPhone 7 for tracking our long walks in SF.

Unit2Sucks;842805345 said:

---

I hesitate to disagree with you on taste-related matters, but I think you are leaving out the people who are just fascinated by tiny machines. When you're talking about Richard Mille, I mostly agree that it's about communicating your preferences but many high-end watch enthusiasts are driven by their appreciation for the pieces themselves.

My engineer/tinkerer side really enjoys watch movements and complications (for example, lange zeitwerk minute repeater, not that I would spend the cheddar to get one) and I don't have any interest in peacocking.

---

I agree that there is beauty in the engineering of timepieces and there are many who obsess over that. I was trying to not make judgements on taste, damn it!

Unit2Sucks;842805345 said:

---

My engineer/tinkerer side really enjoys watch movements and complications (for example, lange zeitwerk minute repeater, not that I would spend the cheddar to get one) and I don't have any interest in peacocking.

---

Oooo. That's a good term. Thank you for that.

NYCGOBEARS;842805351 said:

---

I agree that there is beauty in the engineering of timepieces and there are many who obsess over that. I was trying to not make judgements on taste, damn it!

---

I could tell you were holding back. Let the hate flow through you. Tell us how you feel about Hublot watches ...

burritos;842805353 said:

---

Oooo. That's a good term. Thank you for that.

---

:beer:

Unit2Sucks;842805358 said:

---

Tell us how you feel about Hublot watches .

---

Agitator! One word says it all - Stanfurd.

cedarbear;842805348 said:

---

Apple stock is ridiculously cheap for a company that generates such enormous amounts of cash and such high returns on capital. And almost a third of the market cap consists of net cash (and cash equivalents) on the balance sheet.

---

Isn't it though? I know this is a simplistic take on the price, but their cash pile is $237.6 billion dollars. At 5.39 billion share outstanding that's $44 of cash/share. Making their current share of $130/share actually $86/share making their low P/E ratio that much lower.

I don't think the US mint could print money any faster than what apple is doing.

You probably want to subtract out the $88B in short- and long-term debt for this analysis, but still, yeah, it's an extremely profitable company trading at an extremely low valuation!

cedarbear;842805382 said:

---

You probably want to subtract out the $88B in short- and long-term debt for this analysis, but still, yeah, it's an extremely profitable company trading at an extremely low valuation!

---

Good point, though debt is generally factored into a stock price. Whereas a cash pile that is taller than Mount Everest is is a unique feature for apple.

Don't care what you say. This Patek is awesome (although a bit outside my price range). The more curly cue things the better!

Sebastabear;842805399 said:

---

Don't care what you say. This Patek is awesome (although a bit outside my price range). The more curly cue things the better!

---

Too much going on for me. I do like this one, though.

Sebastabear;842805399 said:

---

Don't care what you say. This Patek is awesome (although a bit outside my price range). The more curly cue things the better!

---

These watches cost 100-300k? That seems like a lot to me. Do Rolex owners think this is excessive?

burritos;842805411 said:

---

These watches cost 100-300k? That seems like a lot to me. Do Rolex owners think this is excessive?

---

I am a Rolex guy and I think that is excessive (although that isn't a Rolex). Way too blingy and delicate, not to mention expensive. Mine are Submariners and GMT's, considered 'tool' watches. Very rugged and sturdy.