Richard Mille Bubble

[jenniferjanef]

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

Sorry, you've applied a lot of fallacious logic in making your arguments. To understand RM, first, you must put yourself in the position of someone who can afford RM (or several of them).

What is the traditional concept of value here?
Rolex watches used to be very cheap, Rolex was not a luxury brand. But now it is. Why is that?

Why is a RM worth more than a Rolex? Why is a Rolex worth more than a Seiko?

You see, you are trying to justify the cost of an item, where that cost isn't easily justified, the normal cost/benefit analysis doesn't really apply to luxury goods. That's why you can buy a t shirt from Costco for $15 and at the same time, you can get one from Givenchy for $700. What makes the Givenchy top better? I could argue that the Givenchy top is more comfortable, it looks better, it has brand recognition, it is made of better quality material, it is made in Italy as opposed to China etc, but these are all subjective. The real reason is the perceived exclusivity and scarcity. Anyone can afford a $15 top, but a lot of people cannot justify spending $700 due to other expenses/commitments in their life. So you see, just like precious metals, for whatever reason, human beings value scarce items. Gold is pretty to look at it, but would anybody value it, if it was everywhere? It is scarce, it is expensive, hard to find etc.

Your Rolex example with the dial, actually works in the favour of RM watches. Rolex releases a dial and everyone freaks out- True, because almost any Tom, Dick and Harry can afford a Rolex. The target audience is massive. Realistically, anyone with a decent job and without a drug habit, can buy a Rolex, should they so wish it. Not everyone of course, but pretty much anyone in the middle class and above. When RM releases something good (and I agree, that Candy Crush release is BS lol), only a small percentage of people freak out, because, only a small percentage of people can realistically afford one. Supply is so tight, that the demand is always there. The world has plenty of multi-millionaires and billionaires....

From a horological point of view, RM watches use innovative materials, have unique designs and are very resilient. They're easily identifiable by even non-watch enthusiasts. The guys who buy them? Usually young, often successful and almost always watch enthusiasts. In my circle, their RM pieces sit next to their Pateks and APs.

The brand has been around for long enough to not be a fad. Again, the watches have unmatched comfort and are easily recognised...but ultimately, they're known to be expensive and hard to acquire. I think RM have taken off because their watches are actually awesome. $200,000 awesome? Well, if you have $200,000 lying around, yes. Just like a SS Rolex is pretty awesome if you have the funds lying around.

A lot of people say "I don't like RM, they are ugly, bla bla" Fair enough. People say that about Ferraris and Lamborghinis too. Not everyone is going to like every watch. But, often, those who criticise the brand, aren't in the target audience. They couldn't afford the watch even if they liked it and part of me thinks if they could realistically acquire one, they would seriously consider the brand as opposed to write it off. Unfortunately a lot of people attach their self worth to what they can and cannot afford and therefore, often require a justification for not being able to afford something (be it property, a car, a watch etc).

So why did I personally justify buying a few RM watches:
1: I like the brand.
2: I love their designs.They look great and are comfortable.
3: I am a WIS, a non WIS would never spend more than a couple hundred on a watch.
4: I was after something different, something I wouldn't see on a daily basis.
5: I'm not worried about a bubble, the economics, losing etc. You'll find most RM owners won't be impacted by a loss in value of their watches, even if they were to sink to 0. If I was stretching even a little to get into the market- different story.

Concur with you.

[ajw45]

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

You see, you are trying to justify the cost of an item, where that cost isn't easily justified, the normal cost/benefit analysis doesn't really apply to luxury goods.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to justify RM prices on a material basis. I'm really getting at why I'm not convinced the brand has staying power.

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

That's why you can buy a t shirt from Costco for $15 and at the same time, you can get one from Givenchy for $700. What makes the Givenchy top better? I could argue that the Givenchy top is more comfortable, it looks better, it has brand recognition, it is made of better quality material, it is made in Italy as opposed to China etc, but these are all subjective. The real reason is the perceived exclusivity and scarcity.

I agree completely. The difference in price is mostly brand marketing. Further, as I noted above, I think you've supported my point that RM is following a fashion model of luxury brand building. When you build a brand on exclusivity and scarcity that's the definition of a hype/marketing driven company vs a foundation of great product/experience. In fashion where all that matters is what's hot this season (cause inherently last season is not hot) the kind of churn and hype around what's new is typical. There are some amazing fashion houses that have had their ups and downs but continue to reinvent themselves and succeed but there are many more designers who were super hot and are gone. I think RM has done a brilliant job, but it remains to be seen if it's a Cavalli, J Mendel, Yohji Yamamoto, Rock and Republic brand or the next Ralph Lauren. Sure we can all look back and say WTF was going on with those skulls on everything but back then they were pretty awesome. I believe the world of watches moves more slowly and doesn't have the same pace of seasonal luxury like fashion but a decade or two is a drop in the bucket for watch houses so I think it remains to be seen if RM is a fad or not though I'm predicting it will pan out that way. It's not going to disappear like garbage pail kids but it's inevitable there will be a new, hot, more expensive thing, and when that happens RM will struggle without other pillars to it's brand value.

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

Your Rolex example with the dial, actually works in the favour of RM watches. Rolex releases a dial and everyone freaks out- True, because almost any Tom, Dick and Harry can afford a Rolex. The target audience is massive. Realistically, anyone with a decent job and without a drug habit, can buy a Rolex, should they so wish it. Not everyone of course, but pretty much anyone in the middle class and above. When RM releases something good (and I agree, that Candy Crush release is BS lol), only a small percentage of people freak out, because, only a small percentage of people can realistically afford one. Supply is so tight, that the demand is always there. The world has plenty of multi-millionaires and billionaires....

Maybe I didn't explain my point well. My point was that Rolex has history, they have heritage, and their products lines have come to represent something. It's like the Porsche 911, Porsche wasn't always what it is today and the 911 was just a pricey beetle, but that commitment to identity and refinement when markets were good and when Porsche was on the verge of bankruptcy has created a brand and product that can't be copied. People recognize that so small changes are a big deal. RM on the other hand released bonbons which says to me that as a brand they are investing more in new products that can create hype than trying to develop and refine core lines that can stand the test of time.

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

Again, the watches have unmatched comfort and are easily recognised...but ultimately, they're known to be expensive and hard to acquire.

Again, proving my point. RM brand identity is being expensive and exclusive. Patek markets their watches as timeless, forever, a multi-generational luxury. Expensive and exclusive is a part of that but they've also made a concerted effort to have "affordable" lines as well so there is an entry into the Patek family that can grow with out. Rolex markets themselves as a representation of accomplishment and success where stainless used to be an entry point to PM which just recently got turned on it's head (bubble). De Beers markets diamonds as a representation of love and commitment. These are emotions, values, things that you can create a brand around. These luxury brands are looking generations ahead which is how they've ensured they are more than a fad and established that their brand and products are more than just representation of wealth.

RM makes nice watches but they are building a brand around being the most expensivist and exclusive game in town and that only lasts until there's a new most expensivist more exclusive new kid on the block. This is especially true for the billionaire class, they will definitely buy the next most expensivist thing too, and that's why RM is a fad.

Tell me I'm wrong. What is RM investing in that will make it meaningful a generation from now? What does the brand stand for and does it have anything that the next future most expensivist brand can't buy?

[jenniferjanef]

Originally Posted by ajw45

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to justify RM prices on a material basis. I'm really getting at why I'm not convinced the brand has staying power.



I agree completely. The difference in price is mostly brand marketing. Further, as I noted above, I think you've supported my point that RM is following a fashion model of luxury brand building. When you build a brand on exclusivity and scarcity that's the definition of a hype/marketing driven company vs a foundation of great product/experience. In fashion where all that matters is what's hot this season (cause inherently last season is not hot) the kind of churn and hype around what's new is typical. There are some amazing fashion houses that have had their ups and downs but continue to reinvent themselves and succeed but there are many more designers who were super hot and are gone. I think RM has done a brilliant job, but it remains to be seen if it's a Cavalli, J Mendel, Yohji Yamamoto, Rock and Republic brand or the next Ralph Lauren. Sure we can all look back and say WTF was going on with those skulls on everything but back then they were pretty awesome. I believe the world of watches moves more slowly and doesn't have the same pace of seasonal luxury like fashion but a decade or two is a drop in the bucket for watch houses so I think it remains to be seen if RM is a fad or not though I'm predicting it will pan out that way. It's not going to disappear like garbage pail kids but it's inevitable there will be a new, hot, more expensive thing, and when that happens RM will struggle without other pillars to it's brand value.



Maybe I didn't explain my point well. My point was that Rolex has history, they have heritage, and their products lines have come to represent something. It's like the Porsche 911, Porsche wasn't always what it is today and the 911 was just a pricey beetle, but that commitment to identity and refinement when markets were good and when Porsche was on the verge of bankruptcy has created a brand and product that can't be copied. People recognize that so small changes are a big deal. RM on the other hand released bonbons which says to me that as a brand they are investing more in new products that can create hype than trying to develop and refine core lines that can stand the test of time.



Again, proving my point. RM brand identity is being expensive and exclusive. Patek markets their watches as timeless, forever, a multi-generational luxury. Expensive and exclusive is a part of that but they've also made a concerted effort to have "affordable" lines as well so there is an entry into the Patek family that can grow with out. Rolex markets themselves as a representation of accomplishment and success where stainless used to be an entry point to PM which just recently got turned on it's head (bubble). De Beers markets diamonds as a representation of love and commitment. These are emotions, values, things that you can create a brand around. These luxury brands are looking generations ahead which is how they've ensured they are more than a fad and established that their brand and products are more than just representation of wealth.

RM makes nice watches but they are building a brand around being the most expensivist and exclusive game in town and that only lasts until there's a new most expensivist more exclusive new kid on the block. This is especially true for the billionaire class, they will definitely buy the next most expensivist thing too, and that's why RM is a fad.

Tell me I'm wrong. What is RM investing in that will make it meaningful a generation from now? What does the brand stand for and does it have anything that the next future most expensivist brand can't buy?

I can’t argue and certainly don’t dare to argue too..

I own a few RMs myself and I never think so much like you do ie about my next generation and whatever because honestly these are just my toys be it PP AP MB&F URWERK FPJ and Rolex etc.. I live in the moment. I buy what I like and I wear it. Don’t think too much. Life too short especially when I am almost half way through

Cheers!
Jen

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

...So why did I personally justify buying a few RM watches:
3: I am a WIS, a non WIS would never spend more than a couple hundred on a watch.
.

Did you mean couple hundred thousand?

[jenniferjanef]

https://youtu.be/_w9sRrE7uU4

Great vid!

[Fat_ninja]

Originally Posted by jenniferjanef

concur with you.

+1

[systematic.entropy]

Roman Sharf is a big AP and RM fan, and does some pretty fantastic videos.

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by ajw45

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to justify RM prices on a material basis. I'm really getting at why I'm not convinced the brand has staying power.



I agree completely. The difference in price is mostly brand marketing. Further, as I noted above, I think you've supported my point that RM is following a fashion model of luxury brand building. When you build a brand on exclusivity and scarcity that's the definition of a hype/marketing driven company vs a foundation of great product/experience. In fashion where all that matters is what's hot this season (cause inherently last season is not hot) the kind of churn and hype around what's new is typical. There are some amazing fashion houses that have had their ups and downs but continue to reinvent themselves and succeed but there are many more designers who were super hot and are gone. I think RM has done a brilliant job, but it remains to be seen if it's a Cavalli, J Mendel, Yohji Yamamoto, Rock and Republic brand or the next Ralph Lauren. Sure we can all look back and say WTF was going on with those skulls on everything but back then they were pretty awesome. I believe the world of watches moves more slowly and doesn't have the same pace of seasonal luxury like fashion but a decade or two is a drop in the bucket for watch houses so I think it remains to be seen if RM is a fad or not though I'm predicting it will pan out that way. It's not going to disappear like garbage pail kids but it's inevitable there will be a new, hot, more expensive thing, and when that happens RM will struggle without other pillars to it's brand value.



Maybe I didn't explain my point well. My point was that Rolex has history, they have heritage, and their products lines have come to represent something. It's like the Porsche 911, Porsche wasn't always what it is today and the 911 was just a pricey beetle, but that commitment to identity and refinement when markets were good and when Porsche was on the verge of bankruptcy has created a brand and product that can't be copied. People recognize that so small changes are a big deal. RM on the other hand released bonbons which says to me that as a brand they are investing more in new products that can create hype than trying to develop and refine core lines that can stand the test of time.



Again, proving my point. RM brand identity is being expensive and exclusive. Patek markets their watches as timeless, forever, a multi-generational luxury. Expensive and exclusive is a part of that but they've also made a concerted effort to have "affordable" lines as well so there is an entry into the Patek family that can grow with out. Rolex markets themselves as a representation of accomplishment and success where stainless used to be an entry point to PM which just recently got turned on it's head (bubble). De Beers markets diamonds as a representation of love and commitment. These are emotions, values, things that you can create a brand around. These luxury brands are looking generations ahead which is how they've ensured they are more than a fad and established that their brand and products are more than just representation of wealth.

RM makes nice watches but they are building a brand around being the most expensivist and exclusive game in town and that only lasts until there's a new most expensivist more exclusive new kid on the block. This is especially true for the billionaire class, they will definitely buy the next most expensivist thing too, and that's why RM is a fad.

Tell me I'm wrong. What is RM investing in that will make it meaningful a generation from now? What does the brand stand for and does it have anything that the next future most expensivist brand can't buy?

Agree with this.

[PPFANBOY]

Originally Posted by ajw45

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to justify RM prices on a material basis. I'm really getting at why I'm not convinced the brand has staying power.



I agree completely. The difference in price is mostly brand marketing. Further, as I noted above, I think you've supported my point that RM is following a fashion model of luxury brand building. When you build a brand on exclusivity and scarcity that's the definition of a hype/marketing driven company vs a foundation of great product/experience. In fashion where all that matters is what's hot this season (cause inherently last season is not hot) the kind of churn and hype around what's new is typical. There are some amazing fashion houses that have had their ups and downs but continue to reinvent themselves and succeed but there are many more designers who were super hot and are gone. I think RM has done a brilliant job, but it remains to be seen if it's a Cavalli, J Mendel, Yohji Yamamoto, Rock and Republic brand or the next Ralph Lauren. Sure we can all look back and say WTF was going on with those skulls on everything but back then they were pretty awesome. I believe the world of watches moves more slowly and doesn't have the same pace of seasonal luxury like fashion but a decade or two is a drop in the bucket for watch houses so I think it remains to be seen if RM is a fad or not though I'm predicting it will pan out that way. It's not going to disappear like garbage pail kids but it's inevitable there will be a new, hot, more expensive thing, and when that happens RM will struggle without other pillars to it's brand value.



Maybe I didn't explain my point well. My point was that Rolex has history, they have heritage, and their products lines have come to represent something. It's like the Porsche 911, Porsche wasn't always what it is today and the 911 was just a pricey beetle, but that commitment to identity and refinement when markets were good and when Porsche was on the verge of bankruptcy has created a brand and product that can't be copied. People recognize that so small changes are a big deal. RM on the other hand released bonbons which says to me that as a brand they are investing more in new products that can create hype than trying to develop and refine core lines that can stand the test of time.



Again, proving my point. RM brand identity is being expensive and exclusive. Patek markets their watches as timeless, forever, a multi-generational luxury. Expensive and exclusive is a part of that but they've also made a concerted effort to have "affordable" lines as well so there is an entry into the Patek family that can grow with out. Rolex markets themselves as a representation of accomplishment and success where stainless used to be an entry point to PM which just recently got turned on it's head (bubble). De Beers markets diamonds as a representation of love and commitment. These are emotions, values, things that you can create a brand around. These luxury brands are looking generations ahead which is how they've ensured they are more than a fad and established that their brand and products are more than just representation of wealth.

RM makes nice watches but they are building a brand around being the most expensivist and exclusive game in town and that only lasts until there's a new most expensivist more exclusive new kid on the block. This is especially true for the billionaire class, they will definitely buy the next most expensivist thing too, and that's why RM is a fad.

Tell me I'm wrong. What is RM investing in that will make it meaningful a generation from now? What does the brand stand for and does it have anything that the next future most expensivist brand can't buy?

Ok. I'll try avoid getting into a long post, but your argument is, RM is a fad, that in X many years, will not longer be popular for whatever reason. You did mention value in your previous post which is why I discussed value in kind.

For this, we need a crystal ball. But, there are "fads" that have stuck. In the 70s, stainless steel luxury watches were a 'fad', many years later, the Royal Oak and Nautilus say hi.

Further I'd say all your examples are flawed. For example, the 911 isn't Porsche's most popular car. It is the most well-known, but as you said, Porsche almost went into bankruptcy. The Cayenne saved it. The SUV fad if you will. . Rolex does have heritage- there are at least 9 or 10 brands with a stronger heritage. PP, AP, Blancpain...even Seiko. Similarly, Rolex has released their fair share of offensive watches. Colourful jewels and dials with bright orange bezels etc. I think every brand has good/bad models.

I would say that RM will be around for a long time for a few reasons
- They have made many technological advancements- the fact that you have asked what they're doing or what they've accomplished shows that you don't know what they're pretty much universally recognised at being good at by the luxury watch industry. In the almost 20 years they've been around, they've accomplished a lot. (Won't go into details, you can easily google it and verify)
- They make the most comfortable sports watches.
- They use the best materials and a lot of complicated engineering goes into their watches. RM were the first to use many materials. The brand has close ties with F1 and supercar design language. Watches guys are normally car guys, RM guys, are almost always super car guys.
- Unique design language whereby the case is always recognisable at a distance and the movement is always visible.
- People don't just buy them because they're expensive, indeed it is a factor, but other brands have tried/failed the same strategy. Just making something expensive won't make people buy it, it needs other factors that make it appealing. So far all attempts to copy the RM model have failed.
- Their limited supply model works. The company increased prices during a global economic recession, so pricing/demand won't really be an issue.

So in summary, yes, one draw-card is being the most expensive/exclusive brand in the world. But that on its own is not enough. There are various factors behind the demand for RM watches today. Some of the most popular models are the earliest and oldest releases, value retention is phenomenal. In the end, neither of us can say whether it is a fad or not in the long run, but time will tell. However, in the current climate, prima facie, the brand is far from a fad.

[jenniferjanef]

One point to add...

Do you guys realised there isn’t much RM fakes on the market? I mean there are but one look you can instantly tell it is a fake especially if you are already a RM owner.

THIS is a very clear indicator on how much R&D are being deployed n the level of workmanship n the materials used is second to non. Hence it is almost impossible to do a proper imitation.

Look at eg Rolex AP PANERAI n some PP fakes.. honestly.. you can fool me anytime. I really can’t tell the differences!

[Fat_ninja]

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

Ok. I'll try avoid getting into a long post.

Glad u got that all in a short post

[sulttaani]

This week I will receive an RM 67-02 which I paid a premium for, I've had a few RM's before as well, I just don't get it why people argue back and forth if the brand will be around in 10 years or not. Sure I do like if my watches hold value as much as possible and I am not a billionaire, but If at some point my RM is valued to zero I'm sure I will feel like damn, but I still do have the watch which I've been hunting down for two years.

[Fat_ninja]

Originally Posted by sulttaani

This week I will receive an RM 67-02 which I paid a premium for, I've had a few RM's before as well, I just don't get it why people argue back and forth if the brand will be around in 10 years or not. Sure I do like if my watches hold value as much as possible and I am not a billionaire, but If at some point my RM is valued to zero I'm sure I will feel like damn, but I still do have the watch which I've been hunting down for two years.

Which one u getting exciting!

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by jenniferjanef

One point to add...

Do you guys realised there isn’t much RM fakes on the market? I mean there are but one look you can instantly tell it is a fake especially if you are already a RM owner.

THIS is a very clear indicator on how much R&D are being deployed n the level of workmanship n the materials used is second to non. Hence it is almost impossible to do a proper imitation.

Look at eg Rolex AP PANERAI n some PP fakes.. honestly.. you can fool me anytime. I really can’t tell the differences!

I don't think that's a great metric.

If RM's were in as much demand as Rolexes, the fakers will invest more time and money in getting as close as possible.

Looking a the fake Rolexes, even the best ones (that sell for ~$700), are clearly fake if you're a Rolex fan/collector.

Given that Rolex is as good as cash / bars of gold on the open market, the fakers have deemed those to be the most lucrative to spend their resources on.

[7sins]

Originally Posted by PPFANBOY

Ok. I'll try avoid getting into a long post, but your argument is, RM is a fad, that in X many years, will not longer be popular for whatever reason. You did mention value in your previous post which is why I discussed value in kind.

For this, we need a crystal ball. But, there are "fads" that have stuck. In the 70s, stainless steel luxury watches were a 'fad', many years later, the Royal Oak and Nautilus say hi.

Further I'd say all your examples are flawed. For example, the 911 isn't Porsche's most popular car. It is the most well-known, but as you said, Porsche almost went into bankruptcy. The Cayenne saved it. The SUV fad if you will. . Rolex does have heritage- there are at least 9 or 10 brands with a stronger heritage. PP, AP, Blancpain...even Seiko. Similarly, Rolex has released their fair share of offensive watches. Colourful jewels and dials with bright orange bezels etc. I think every brand has good/bad models.

I would say that RM will be around for a long time for a few reasons
- They have made many technological advancements- the fact that you have asked what they're doing or what they've accomplished shows that you don't know what they're pretty much universally recognised at being good at by the luxury watch industry. In the almost 20 years they've been around, they've accomplished a lot. (Won't go into details, you can easily google it and verify)
- They make the most comfortable sports watches.
- They use the best materials and a lot of complicated engineering goes into their watches. RM were the first to use many materials. The brand has close ties with F1 and supercar design language. Watches guys are normally car guys, RM guys, are almost always super car guys.
- Unique design language whereby the case is always recognisable at a distance and the movement is always visible.
- People don't just buy them because they're expensive, indeed it is a factor, but other brands have tried/failed the same strategy. Just making something expensive won't make people buy it, it needs other factors that make it appealing. So far all attempts to copy the RM model have failed.
- Their limited supply model works. The company increased prices during a global economic recession, so pricing/demand won't really be an issue.

So in summary, yes, one draw-card is being the most expensive/exclusive brand in the world. But that on its own is not enough. There are various factors behind the demand for RM watches today. Some of the most popular models are the earliest and oldest releases, value retention is phenomenal. In the end, neither of us can say whether it is a fad or not in the long run, but time will tell. However, in the current climate, prima facie, the brand is far from a fad.

Could not agree more, absolutely spot on.

[PPFANBOY]

Originally Posted by sulttaani

This week I will receive an RM 67-02 which I paid a premium for, I've had a few RM's before as well, I just don't get it why people argue back and forth if the brand will be around in 10 years or not. Sure I do like if my watches hold value as much as possible and I am not a billionaire, but If at some point my RM is valued to zero I'm sure I will feel like damn, but I still do have the watch which I've been hunting down for two years.

Congrats! Post pics in the RM thread when you do.

Originally Posted by Fat_ninja

Glad u got that all in a short post

LOL.
Yeah sorry bud.