Patek v. A. Lange & Sohne

[QueueCumber]

I think we need to make a distinction here. Lower end, regular release Langes may drop in value on the used market, but limited edition pieces sure don't for the most part, and often increase in value quite a bit over original price. While some of their expensive pieces have dropped in value on the used market, other higher end pieces haven't dropped a lot in value on the used market and are on par with PP.

There are too many broad generalizations going on in this thread...

[sebastien1975]

I remember watching an interview of Philippe Dufour on Youtube where he claimed that the best manufacturer of Chronographes was Lange. For a Swiss masterwatchmaker to say that, says a lot about Lange's quality.
I do think Patek is the king of the hill but i hope competition from Lange will push Patek to innovate a bit more.

[myopiccoog]

Same goes for Patek.

I think we should compare and contrast grand complications. The rest are just made for cash flow and to support the real art of watchmaking.

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

I think we need to make a distinction here. Lower end, regular release Langes may drop in value on the used market, but limited edition pieces sure don't for the most part, and often increase in value quite a bit over original price. While some of their expensive pieces have dropped in value on the used market, other higher end pieces haven't dropped a lot in value on the used market and are on par with PP.

There are too many broad generalizations going on in this thread...

[myopiccoog]

Lange wins in chrono's if you can stomach the size of the case. A dato is a better watch than a 5070 and maybe a 5170 (cosmetically)even though the 5170 movement like the 5270 movement has propietary tehnology when it comes to the chrono function. Patek developed a new mechanism to make the chrono more accurate. Last time there was technological change for this part was in the late 1800's!

However on the split second. Patek wins all day. The 5004 and now they 5204 are the hardest complication to make and Patek made it. Values prove it here as well.

Originally Posted by sebastien1975

I remember watching an interview of Philippe Dufour on Youtube where he claimed that the best manufacturer of Chronographes was Lange. For a Swiss masterwatchmaker to say that, says a lot about Lange's quality.
I do think Patek is the king of the hill but i hope competition from Lange will push Patek to innovate a bit more.

[sebastien1975]

Originally Posted by myopiccoog

Same goes for Patek.

I think we should compare and contrast grand complications. The rest are just made for cash flow and to support the real art of watchmaking.

Interesting thoughts. I actually see it the other way around.
I doubt Richemont is in it "to support the real art of watchmaking". Grand complications are made for prestige and brand, which help charging huge premium on more simpler watches.

Anyone can hire one or two masterwatchmakers who will produce amazing complications. IMO, great watchbrands should be assessed based on their ability to consistently manufacture high-quality pieces, from the entry level to the most complicated repeater.

[Le Chef]

Ken and I went to the factory this last spring to see what they were doing. They were adding a new production facility. They were also adding production of their own patented design mainspring and bringing that in house. They were training and adding new watchmakers. A number of watchmakers (and not just one or two) we're assembling the high end complications. There was certainly no sign of smoke and mirrors. And equally those from Richmont were clearly committed to investment and growing the brand.

If you don't believe it my suggestion is to contact Lange and ask to see it yourself.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

I think we need to make a distinction here. Lower end, regular release Langes may drop in value on the used market, but limited edition pieces sure don't for the most part, and often increase in value quite a bit over original price. While some of their expensive pieces have dropped in value on the used market, other higher end pieces haven't dropped a lot in value on the used market and are on par with PP.

There are too many broad generalizations going on in this thread...

Good point Queue, I was talking about the low end "readily" available pieces and it is certainly true that actually rare pieces have done much much better at auction.

[sebastien1975]

Originally Posted by Le Chef

Ken and I went to the factory this last spring to see what they were doing. They were adding a new production facility. They were also adding production of their own patented design mainspring and bringing that in house. They were training and adding new watchmakers. A number of watchmakers (and not just one or two) we're assembling the high end complications. There was certainly no sign of smoke and mirrors. And equally those from Richmont were clearly committed to investment and growing the brand.

If you don't believe it my suggestion is to contact Lange and ask to see it yourself.

Thanks for sharing your experience.
I never suggested that Patek or Lange had only one or two high-end watchmakers. My point was about criteria used to compare watch brands - the topic of this thread - and the fact that the ability to produce grand complications is probably not the right proxy to assess the superiority of one watchmaker vs. another.

[malarky_hk]

Great discussion going on here; and I'm reading with interest.

[Bulliondesk]

Originally Posted by kuota_kalibur

I wish ALS makes grand complications that you can actually wear. 44mm and below and not 45mm to 50mm grand complications clocks that aren't wristwatches anymore. I mean come on, how can you wear a 50mm ALS Grand Complication watch from ALS not that I can afford it.

Patek makes grand complications and tries to put them in the thinnest and smallest case possible. Now, that's amazing IMHO. ALS cases are always thicker and that turns me off too.

Well said. Completely agree. Lange Grand Comp is like wearing a hockey puck on your wrist. Patek has mastered the Grand Complication in all aspects.

Patek Grand Complications are the most important and well known watches in the history of watchmaking.. Just a few for example.. 1518, 2499, 3970, 5970.. 5004.. 3974, 3939, 5016, 5074...etc etc. Lange isn't in the same ball park when discussing Grand Complications.. the history and auction results of the most infamous pieces speak for themselves.

[Preacher]

No one does complications like Patek Philippe IMO. One example is the double split single pusher chrono in the 5950 is rated as the thinnest movement of its kind! And what a beauty it is!

[Oryx]

Originally Posted by Preacher

No one does complications like Patek Philippe IMO. One example is the double split single pusher chrono in the 5950 is rated as the thinnest movement of its kind! And what a beauty it is!

Couldn't agree with you more - this is one of the best modern wrist watches period.

I think the finishing on Lange's is second to none and they are the only manufacturer in the same league as Patek. But for overall ownership satisfaction you cannot beat Patek.

Being part of Richemont will always have some constraints on Lange whether directly or indirectly - there will be pressure to meet short term shareholder targets / gradually increase production etc. With Patek I would expect the Stern family to manage the company with longer term aspirations and not purely to maximise short term profitability.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by Oryx

Couldn't agree with you more - this is one of the best modern wrist watches period.

I think the finishing on Lange's is second to none and they are the only manufacturer in the same league as Patek. But for overall ownership satisfaction you cannot beat Patek.

I have to say that ownership satisfaction comes down to personal opinion with some things. No Pateks I have ever seen please me aesthetically like the platinum Zeitwerk and Richard Lange PLM Tourbillon please me. I like my 5270g and 5170j, and the 5270g is probably my favorite Patek design right now, but it does not hold a candle to those Langes. Of course, YMMV, as might anyone else's mileage...

I wonder if the waiting times to have a Lange serviced are as horrendous as they are for Pateks. Anyone know?

Originally Posted by Oryx

Being part of Richemont will always have some constraints on Lange whether directly or indirectly - there will be pressure to meet short term shareholder targets / gradually increase production etc. With Patek I would expect the Stern family to manage the company with longer term aspirations and not purely to maximise short term profitability.

That seems like conjecture to me. I'm sure both companies have pressures on all the same fronts. We don't know what kind of pressures Richemont is putting on ALS, just as we don't know what pressures exist within the Stern business model.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by Bulliondesk

Well said. Completely agree. Lange Grand Comp is like wearing a hockey puck on your wrist. Patek has mastered the Grand Complication in all aspects.

Patek Grand Complications are the most important and well known watches in the history of watchmaking.. Just a few for example.. 1518, 2499, 3970, 5970.. 5004.. 3974, 3939, 5016, 5074...etc etc. Lange isn't in the same ball park when discussing Grand Complications.. the history and auction results of the most infamous pieces speak for themselves.

Patek grand complications emphasize small, thin movements. While Lange maybe bigger and thicker but it is because German engineering focus more on functions, robustness, consistency, and reliability.

Anyone who has handled Lange chronographs knows that the buttons has better action and is in general a better movement. Patek watches like 5004 are problematic and not reliable. Granted, it is an older design but sometimes people gets carried away and anything Patek makes is the best, but is it really?

The problem with Lange is that they weren't active during the golden age of watchmaking, hence their poor or lack of auction results hurt their collectibility and the effects extend to modern collections. Again the 5004 example, even a well used one hovers around 200k, that's the price for a brand new Lange 1815 Split seconds, which I have seen in person and is better made.

[myopiccoog]

The new 5270 and 5204 Movements are far superior to the old 5004 and 3970/5970 movements.

I like Lange, but look at the split per calendar. That dial is crazy. Too much going on. I love the Zeitwerk and have been offered one at a super low price used. I am considering it. I also like the Dato. I don't get into to Tourbillon for some reason.

[leisen]

IMO today Patek is the comparison pattern for all other brands, i.e.: This brand is better than a PP or this brand is not as good as a PP or this brand is as good as PP, but always PP is present as a comparative factor.

[Bulliondesk]

Originally Posted by tom2517

Patek watches like 5004 are problematic and not reliable. Granted, it is an older design but sometimes people gets carried away and anything Patek makes is the best, but is it really? Again the 5004 example, even a well used one hovers around 200k, that's the price for a brand new Lange 1815 Split seconds, which I have seen in person and is better made.

Sorry, but you cannot compare a watch (5004) which was first produced in 1996 that retailed for FAR less than "200k" to a Lange being produced today in 2013/2014. Why? Because your comparison is on the losing end. ;) Prices for 5004 have hit 300-500k in the height of the the market. Currently a simple G, white dial, Arabic numbers (the most common) is in the 200-230 range. Not to mention the J's R's and P's which currently can fetch far more than 300k. Find me a regular production grand complication Lange that has increased a couple hundred thousand over a 5-15 year span? Not to mention the 3970, 5970 so on and so on (I could list easily 10-15 more references) which have all increased significantly in value over a very short period of time. Patek is like cash in the bank.. even better as all of the grand complication chronographs have increased significantly in value over their original retail price.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by Bulliondesk

Sorry, but you cannot compare a watch (5004) which was first produced in 1996 that retailed for FAR less than "200k" to a Lange being produced today in 2013/2014. Prices for 5004 have hit 300-500k in the height of the the market. Currently a simple G, white dial, Arabic numbers (the most common) is in the 200-230 range. Not to mention the J's R's and P's which currently can fetch far more than 300k. Find me a regular production Lange that has increased a couple hundred thousand over a 5-15 year span? Not to mention the 3970, 5970 so on and so on which have all increased significantly in value over a very short period of time. Patek is like cash in the bank, most of the time even better if you buy the right piece at the right price.

No offense, but those price increases in collectors markets have little to do with the inherent quality comparison between these two companies. I will agree that many people buy the name and security that some brands offer rather than what they actually like, so people may hedge their bets by buying some Pateks (though some pieces don't go up in price over time). If you want to buy a watch based on investment opportunities your money is better invested in something besides watches.

[shnxx]

This is a very interesting thread.
I had no idea that higher-end Langes hold their prices well in the used market.

What about the Datographs? I know they're not among the high-end Langes but for a benchmark Lange, it seems to be more affordable than a similar Patek chronograph (I prefer the Datograph too so I don't understand why it's seemingly cheaper).

What I'm basing my statements on:

http://www.chrono24.com/en/search/in...1&watchTypes=U

http://www.chrono24.com/en/search/in...&suchen=Search

[vc_watches]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

No offense, but those price increases in collectors markets have little to do with the inherent quality comparison between these two companies. I will agree that many people buy the name and security that some brands offer rather than what they actually like, so people may hedge their bets by buying some Pateks (though some pieces don't go up in price over time). If you want to buy a watch based on investment opportunities your money is better invested in something besides watches.

If you like the aesthetics of Lange better versus Patek, totally a subjective thing. Completely understand.

But you can't discount price increases in collectors' markets as perhaps the only INTERSUBJECTIVE (note that I didn't say "objective") measure of value using which we can have some kind of discussion. Otherwise, if everything about a timepiece is subjective then there is no basis for discussion. We are all right in our own minds and wrong in others' minds.

I agree that watches shouldn't be seen as an investment. But given the price points of grand complications you'd be a fool if you didn't spend at least some time searching for the best price, disposal options in the event that you need to liquidate, evaluating service options for older pieces, and secondary market prices where trends are available.

And because of Patek's longer history, they dominate Lange. For now. Accident of history? Unfair advantage? Sure. Doesn't change the facts.

All that Lange collectors can say is that PERHAPS Lange will perform just as well in fifty years as Patek is doing right now. Hell, who knows what will happen fifty years from now. Maybe both watchmakers will be out of business. So yes, buy what you want, because you want to wear it.

But you need to look at secondary market pricing trends, where available, and that for me correlates with perceptions and reality of quality - not just for the product itself, but for the overall experience of owning a fine timepiece.

Yes, long service times are a minus for me. But hey, here's one example of a "quality issue." I lost one of my 3970P's pusher caps last week. Patek just told me a few days later that they had the exact part - platinum, of course - in stock and will replace it. Boom. The 3970 was discontinued in 2004. Let Lange discontinue a model TODAY and show me 10 years from now that they have that piece's parts in stock in case I need it. That's when I'll begin thinking they're at Patek's level. Oh. Also, I'll check secondary market pricing trends in the collector's market and that will inform my judgment.

My two cents: can't ignore secondary market prices in the "quality" and "this-versus-that" discussion.

[shnxx]

Originally Posted by vc_watches

If you like the aesthetics of Lange better versus Patek, totally a subjective thing. Completely understand.

But you can't discount price increases in collectors' markets as perhaps the only INTERSUBJECTIVE (note that I didn't say "objective") measure of value using which we can have some kind of discussion. Otherwise, if everything about a timepiece is subjective then there is no basis for discussion. We are all right in our own minds and wrong in others' minds.

I agree that watches shouldn't be seen as an investment. But given the price points of grand complications you'd be a fool if you didn't spend at least some time searching for the best price, disposal options in the event that you need to liquidate, evaluating service options for older pieces, and secondary market prices where trends are available.

And because of Patek's longer history, they dominate Lange. For now. Accident of history? Unfair advantage? Sure. Doesn't change the facts.

All that Lange collectors can say is that PERHAPS Lange will perform just as well in fifty years as Patek is doing right now. Hell, who knows what will happen fifty years from now. Maybe both watchmakers will be out of business. So yes, buy what you want, because you want to wear it.

But you need to look at secondary market pricing trends, where available, and that for me correlates with perceptions and reality of quality - not just for the product itself, but for the overall experience of owning a fine timepiece.

Yes, long service times are a minus for me. But hey, here's one example of a "quality issue." I lost one of my 3970P's pusher caps last week. Patek just told me a few days later that they had the exact part - platinum, of course - in stock and will replace it. Boom. The 3970 was discontinued in 2004. Let Lange discontinue a model TODAY and show me 10 years from now that they have that piece's parts in stock in case I need it. That's when I'll begin thinking they're at Patek's level. Oh. Also, I'll check secondary market pricing trends in the collector's market and that will inform my judgment.

My two cents: can't ignore secondary market prices in the "quality" and "this-versus-that" discussion.

Good read

[DK3]

Honestly, there is no brand in Patek's league as far as blue chip value. That is proven with resale values and auction prices. Additionally, Patek's history and reputation are impeccable.

Everyone can make a fantastic watch, but history and reputation is what gives a luxury watch value.

[Le Chef]

Value for me has nothing to do with $'s but in the joy of wearing my watches.

I bought my Lange's and Patek's because I liked the way they were made, the way they looked, and I like the way they wear.

I couldn't give a $hit what their 2nd hand value is because it's irrelevant to me; they'll just be given away when I'm gone.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by Bulliondesk

Sorry, but you cannot compare a watch (5004) which was first produced in 1996 that retailed for FAR less than "200k" to a Lange being produced today in 2013/2014. Why? Because your comparison is on the losing end. ;) Prices for 5004 have hit 300-500k in the height of the the market. Currently a simple G, white dial, Arabic numbers (the most common) is in the 200-230 range. Not to mention the J's R's and P's which currently can fetch far more than 300k. Find me a regular production grand complication Lange that has increased a couple hundred thousand over a 5-15 year span? Not to mention the 3970, 5970 so on and so on (I could list easily 10-15 more references) which have all increased significantly in value over a very short period of time. Patek is like cash in the bank.. even better as all of the grand complication chronographs have increased significantly in value over their original retail price.

That's exactly my point. Lange's split second is better made than the 5004 (never seen 5204 in person yet so can't compare, but don't like the dial), however, it's worth even less than an used 5004.

As much as I like the 1815 split second, for similar amount of money I acquired the 5970P instead. Do I think the 1815 is a superior watch? After seeing it person, no doubt in my mind. And maybe in 50 years people will come to realize that modern Lange made in the 2000's is better than Pateks made in the same period and will pay more for it in auctions, but it's certainly not going to happen in the near future. With 5970P I will take less loss when it comes to upgrade time, I don't have enough $$$$ that I can just ignore second hand prices.

[vc_watches]

Originally Posted by Le Chef

Value for me has nothing to do with $'s but in the joy of wearing my watches.

I bought my Lange's and Patek's because I liked the way they were made, the way they looked, and I like the way they wear.

I couldn't give a $hit what their 2nd hand value is because it's irrelevant to me; they'll just be given away when I'm gone.

Probably means you have far more money than me. Wish I were in your boat!

I also hope that whoever will receive your watches defines value the same way you do (assuming you care about whoever will receive them).

No one can predict the future reliably. But my children will receive my watches. And if they are ever in a bind (fingers crossed that they never have to come to this) and have to sell some baubles they received from dearly departed Dad... well, I hope those baubles fetch them the amount they need.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by vc_watches

If you like the aesthetics of Lange better versus Patek, totally a subjective thing. Completely understand.

But you can't discount price increases in collectors' markets as perhaps the only INTERSUBJECTIVE (note that I didn't say "objective") measure of value using which we can have some kind of discussion. Otherwise, if everything about a timepiece is subjective then there is no basis for discussion. We are all right in our own minds and wrong in others' minds.

I agree that watches shouldn't be seen as an investment. But given the price points of grand complications you'd be a fool if you didn't spend at least some time searching for the best price, disposal options in the event that you need to liquidate, evaluating service options for older pieces, and secondary market prices where trends are available.

And because of Patek's longer history, they dominate Lange. For now. Accident of history? Unfair advantage? Sure. Doesn't change the facts.

All that Lange collectors can say is that PERHAPS Lange will perform just as well in fifty years as Patek is doing right now. Hell, who knows what will happen fifty years from now. Maybe both watchmakers will be out of business. So yes, buy what you want, because you want to wear it.

But you need to look at secondary market pricing trends, where available, and that for me correlates with perceptions and reality of quality - not just for the product itself, but for the overall experience of owning a fine timepiece.

Yes, long service times are a minus for me. But hey, here's one example of a "quality issue." I lost one of my 3970P's pusher caps last week. Patek just told me a few days later that they had the exact part - platinum, of course - in stock and will replace it. Boom. The 3970 was discontinued in 2004. Let Lange discontinue a model TODAY and show me 10 years from now that they have that piece's parts in stock in case I need it. That's when I'll begin thinking they're at Patek's level. Oh. Also, I'll check secondary market pricing trends in the collector's market and that will inform my judgment.

My two cents: can't ignore secondary market prices in the "quality" and "this-versus-that" discussion.

Please don't bold certain text in my quotes and argue them out of context of the entire passage. It puts emphasis where I had none. It bolsters your argument at the cost of depicting mine differently than how it was originally stated.

I never said people should ignore secondary market value and brand history. That being said these things are not a measurable (graded) quality of the watch itself, and often these things can be the illusion of quality, as is the case IMO when you have the same movement in PP and several other perpetual and non-perpetual chronographs at very large price differentials. This irrationality may be a quality of collecting watches, but it isn't an inherent graded quality of the the watch itself. In this case people are investing purely in the brand name and history. Sure, rarity also compounds the price differentials, but there are watches just as rare with amazing movements that are relatively worthless because they aren't Patek Philippe.

In short, I didn't say people shouldn't consider brand name and secondary market values (in fact, in the non-bolded section I stated that many people do buy watches based on those criteria), but these things are not a graded quality of the watch itself. I guess I assumed people knew what I meant by quality (characteristics that can be reliably graded between watches within and outside the same company to distinguish them from one another). The 5970 and 5070 are perfect examples of where a system based on using brand name and secondary market values to measure inherent quality of a watch fall apart.

[vc_watches]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

Please don't bold certain text in my quotes and argue them out of context of the entire passage. It puts emphasis where I had none. It bolsters your argument at the cost of depicting mine differently than how it was originally stated.

I never said people should ignore secondary market value and brand history. That being said these things are not a measurable (graded) quality of the watch itself, and often these things can be the illusion of quality, as is the case IMO when you have the same movement in PP and several other perpetual and non-perpetual chronographs at very large price differentials. This irrationality may be a quality of collecting watches, but it isn't an inherent graded quality of the the watch itself. In this case people are investing purely in the brand name and history. Sure, rarity also compounds the price differentials, but there are watches just as rare with amazing movements that are relatively worthless because they aren't Patek Philippe.

In short, I didn't say people shouldn't consider brand name and secondary market values (in fact, in the non-bolded section I stated that many people do buy watches based on those criteria), but these things are not a graded quality of the watch itself. I guess I assumed people knew what I meant by quality (characteristics that can be reliably graded between watches within and outside the same company to distinguish them from one another). The 5970 and 5070 are perfect examples of where a system based on using brand name and secondary market values to measure inherent quality of a watch fall apart.

I'm glad you're being more precise and clarifying your definitions of "gradable quality."

It can be argued, I submit, that using "objectively gradable or rankable" criteria to compare timepieces is the purer approach to horology. Sure, let's compare finishing, craftsmanship (to the extent these can truly be compared objectively), purity of precious metals used (this can be compared objectively) and precision and reliability of movements (as myopiccoog stated, the new CH29-535 movement can be shown to be more precise and reliable than the old CH27-70 movement for Patek's qp chronos). Let's separate brand reputation and company history from any such evaluations as well.

What I'm saying is that when many (I would argue - most) collectors purchase watches, they bundle the "purer" approach above (which I am assuming you're advocating - am I incorrect? Did I just misquote you or did I misread your statement yet again?) with all the intangibles ("subjective"? "non-gradable"?) of the experience of owning a fine timepiece. Brand reputation, company history, parts and servicing, likelihood of being around in the next generation or two, and yes, secondary market pricing. Some might even pay a premium to reward a manufacturer for original design - even if another jeweler or maker can make a piece so similar and comparable, using the same materials, that two pieces side by side can only be distinguished by master craftsmen.

A crude example: there are Birkin super fakes that are made in China right now that are so good that only a master craftsman from Hermes can tell the difference between a super fake and an original. Even that master craftsman might not be able to "grade" the super fake any lower than the real thing - only proclaim that the super fake wasn't made by a (licensed?) Hermes craftsman. Would you buy the super fake? Would you give it to your wife?

An example closer to what we're discussing: Patek Philippe Calatrava cuff links. Supposedly a skilled jeweler can use CAD/CAM to make a copy indistinguishable from the ones Patek makes, at 50% (or less) of the cost. I have yet to see a copy that didn't look pathetic, by the way, but hey, let's suppose it can be done. Will I buy the fake even if NO ONE can distinguish it from the real thing? Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable. Patek's Calatrava Cross design is so closely associated with a brand/manufacturer that I respect that I would pay the premium for the real thing - even if every single objective gradable quality of the piece, divorced from brand or company association, is ranked equal with the copy. I would be wearing a copy passed off as the real thing - just not me.

(Now, Tiffany designs and that company's history and recent practice is another story altogether, but let's not digress too much)...

What is the point of this digression into "copies" and "the real thing"? Suppose we have a watchmaker that can make a perfect, brand new, mint version of a rare Patek Philippe 2499P. Highly unlikely, but let's just suppose it can be done. Down to the last detail of the movement. Heck, Master Super Copier Dude can even copy the known imprecision and/or weaknesses of the old movement. So now you have a copy of Eric Clapton's 2499P, or that one other piece unique that rests in the Patek Museum in Geneva. A PERFECT copy, in every single objectively gradeable, rankable criteria you can name.

Except it has "VC_WATCHES" on it, and not "Patek Philippe." Patek will not service it 10, 20, 30 years from now, even if every single part Patek keeps in stock for their 2499s can be used for it. Furthermore, assume that you shot and buried the Master Super Copier Dude right after he finished making the piece. Now it's a piece unique!

How much will you pay for it? Will you wear it proudly? Will you pass it on to your kids? How much do you think it will fetch in the secondary market?

After all that is said and done - my original point remains: I don't think you can (truly and honestly) separate objectively gradable qualities from everything that's come to be associated with a particular brand or company when it comes to evaluating a timepiece's "value." It's like these ultimately pointless discussions about what drives pricing - the brand or the actual quality of watches they make. The quality and history and reputation of a brand is what made the brand strong and helped it endure in the first place, and it feeds off itself. Conversely, if a watchmaker starts screwing up new pieces they make (pregnant tachymeter anyone?) then the brand suffers - a brand ain't forever.and

Perhaps it's not the purest approach to horology, but I suspect (and I'm happy to be proven wrong) that most collectors think about their collections in this "mongrel-y" fashion.

Queuecumber, you used the word "irrational" above (I hope I'm not misquoting you) in reference to price differentials between watches with measurable/gradable/rankable qualities. Would it be irrational if people paid less for a perfect copy of the 2499P in my (admittedly) extreme example above? Would it be irrational for people to still want to buy original Birkins from Hermes if super fakes with really comparable gradable measures of quality can be obtained for a fraction of the price?

[vc_watches]

By the way, Queuecumber, I do not disagree with your assessment of relative pricing for 5970 and 5070. That's why I went for a 3970. Heh heh.

And I am 99% sure that you and I see eye to eye about all these details. The limitations of the written word and clarifying details and assumptions are getting in the way of full agreement, IMHO. However, I think it is useful to elaborate on these thoughts in written form given our platform of discussion here in TRF - at the risk of overly long posts.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by vc_watches

By the way, Queuecumber, I do not disagree with your assessment of relative pricing for 5970 and 5070. That's why I went for a 3970. Heh heh.

And I am 99% sure that you and I see eye to eye about all these details. The limitations of the written word and clarifying details and assumptions are getting in the way of full agreement, IMHO. However, I think it is useful to elaborate on these thoughts in written form given our platform of discussion here in TRF - at the risk of overly long posts.

Lol, that's why I said I will take less loss on my 5970P when I want to upgrade.

The MSRP for 5270 is even more off the mark, Patek already resorting to changing dials to help the sales, not a good sign.

And I just read the Hoodinkee article on Patek perpetual calendar chronographs, 3970 is indeed a great buy.

[PatekCollector]

Well, both brands are on the top of the mountain. Patek is still a Patek while Lange is doing fantastic recently.

Not all Pateks (as well as Lange) are collectable. However if you've selected the correct referenecs from both brands then you're in the right way as you gonna enjoy your watch and its value keeps increasing.

Just for example:
Enamil world time from Patek are 100%+ cool watches & great investment. Repeaters are same too. Some other refs has same level as well.

Lange: Zietwerks has same situtation of above Pateks. Some other LEs too.

So finally select the correct model from both great brands and you're in safe.

Cool thread by the way :)