Shreve in San Francisco/ Palo Alto lost Patek status

[Mrhenish]

Originally Posted by Ubiquitous1984

One of my biggest watch-collecting fears (other than running out of cash!) is my AD being de-listed by Patek. The relationship that I have worked hard to build would be gone, and it would be almost impossible to re-build elsewhere.

I feel very sorry for the collectors who are affected by these de-listings.

This happened to me. It sucks. I do appreciate you recognizing it so thank you. Sorry to all of those impacted by this delisting.

[bay_area_kid]

Originally Posted by MP777

Is this the SA? https://www.reddit.com/user/need_rolex/

I skimmed through some posts and I didn't see anything specifically referring to Shreve & Co. But there are a lot of great insights there, much more details than your typical "I work at a Rolex AD, AMA" that pops up once in awhile in that forum. I especially found the post on allocation days enlightening.

I also love how that guy handled some of the down voters

[texasmade]

Originally Posted by codecow

I guess but if you’re rich why are you wasting your time with stupid crap like this? Boo boo I didn’t get my watch? Sounds like someone who’s flying too close to the sun.

Some people don’t like being lied to and have the means to be vindictive.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by texasmade

Some people don’t like being lied to and have the means to be vindictive.

I guess… this is like the ultimate anti-flex.

[Calatrava r]

A lot of this boils down to is what is a reasonable expectation under the circumstances, what were the terms between the parties and what was the understanding between the parties. It seems to me there were no definite terms as the plaintiff was just buying with no definite amount agreed upon. There was no date for completions of the purchases or for the store to complete the delivery. Allocations of the watch to the store were beyond the store's control. It seems hard to me to find a binding contract here with all the uncertainties and vague terms.

[NYG1121]

If a company like Patek (and many other high end manufacturers) are going the boutique route, its literally in their own best interest to keep the loyal customer from the ADs. I think this will backfire big time when the economy softens

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But would Patek not simply offer the choice of losing the line or opening a stand-alone? Those are all operated by ADs anyways.

No because closing doors is the among the best ways to maintain their demand.

When a brand gets RED HOT in terms of popularity, the best move is to pull back production and distribution.

The worst move is to overproduce and over distribute in response to hot demand.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

No because closing doors is the among the best ways to maintain their demand.

When a brand gets RED HOT in terms of popularity, the best move is to pull back production and distribution.

The worst move is to overproduce and over distribute in response to hot demand.

What I was referring to was a scenario where:

Multi-brand AD 1 in Market X sells Patek
Patek is happy with its current presence in Market X
Patek is happy with the performance of Multi-brand AD 1
Patek is not happy that its watches share real estate with lesser brands
Patek would prefer to have an exclusive boutique in Market X
Patek does not plan to enter retail industry in Market X

Therefore:

Patek must have an AD open a mono-brand boutique in Market X
Patek can stick with Multi-brand AD 1 or find a new one


In this scenario, there seems no reason not to offer its current partner the opportunity to open a Patek boutique in place of the cases in its current showroom. I've visited several ADs that have a Patek "room" off to the side (same main entrance, but completely separate area). Others, like the relatively new one in Miami, seem to be completely standalone.