Establishing Better Standards

[John Cote]

Steve,

Thank you for your very thoughtful post. I agree with most of what you say. Especially that it would be great if some collaborative work could be done to establish a better rarity rating system.

I want time to digest your entire post, but I would like to make comments on 2 aspects, while they are fresh in my mind.

First, on the relative value of watches; I believe that prices of anything are set by the market. While I agree that it is strange that a coin of equal rarity is worth so much more than a watch, I don't think you can say the watch "should" be worth any more. Anything "should" be worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it. As for JH's comment that "truly rare watches have been under priced, purposely, to aid dealers [and collectors] in acquisitions."; I think I know what he means, but the statement, on its face, cannot be true. We all know dealers! We know dealers would like to buy watches as cheaply as possible, but do you really think, for one minute, that they would like to sell them for one penny less than they could get (and rightfully so). MARKET MARKET MARKET. JH should know the old real estate saw..."There are only three reasons why a piece of real estate will not sell...price, price, and price". I think this is absolutely true.

Secondly, on the subject of the rarity of private labels; I have given this subject a lot of thought, for many years and I'm still not sure. An "A. Lincoln" grade Illinois marked Denver Rio Grande Special, is still just an A. Lincoln with a special marking. There were 31,860 open face model 5 A. Lincolns made, and probably 20 or less were made with D&RG Special on the movement and dial. This certainly makes the D&RG more desirable than the standard A. Lincoln, but does it make it the same rarity as an open face Illinois grade 310 "Diamond Ruby Sapphire", of which only 20 of the whole grade were produced? I don't know.

I collect private labels, and I guess I would love it if they were all "4 Stars" but I'm not sure what it would mean if my Joe Schmoe Jewelry, Bugfug, Iowa, 7 jewel Waltham were 4 stars.

John Cote
johncote@interstatetime.com http://www.interstatetime.com

[Steve Cunningham]

Steve, you make some excellent points. I still use Roy Earhardt's definition of what a watch is worth. It's :A watch is worth what a knowledgeable buyer, who wants to buy it, will pay a knowledgeable seller, who wants to sell it."
As for the Price Guides, they are only a guide, not a Bible. In the past, when I mentioned price discrepancies to one of the contributors, he invited me to correct the figures, and they would publish mine.
The late Ed Kieft was keeping track of the known Rockford 950 serial numbers. Before he died, I think he'd logged about 20-25 total. I'm sure maybe one or two more have shown up each year since he passed away.

[Jon Hanson]

Question; Who ridiculed the $100,000 Howard , Davis and Dennison?

Correction: The original S & M price was 1,000,000!

The point re coin collecting: THERE ARE MILLIONS (YES, MILLIONS OF COIN COLLECTORS); thus, much greater demand.

Second point: watches are not MONEY. People are more interested in "money" than watches. Yes, watches are cheap as compared to coins. A rare watch is many times rarer than a rare coin.

The 1913 Liberty Head nickel: Five were struck, five known; all at one time owned by the famous Col. Green, son of wall street witch Hetty Green. While rare, these really are fantasy pieces, made to order by the mint in "off hours".

BUT, the price of the 1913 nickel is NOTHING as compared to the $4,000,050 for a restrike 1804 dollar!!! (18 known! Struck much later, thus restrikes!)

Jon



------------------
Jon Hanson, moderator, nawcc#8801

[Dave Haynes]

About the only things that watches and coins have in common are condition and rarity, things that are relative to collecting anything.

I think the coin collectors, serious ones,
are in rarified air. A friend just sold a piece of post civil war paper currency, a
note from a private bank, for $80,000! Coins
and currency, are collected world wide by
high end boys as a good way to store loot.
But their stuff is all the absolute best stuff.
Watch collectors have a much more limited
audience and the material base is usually much larger. The run up of wrist watches, most notably, Pateks, in the mid 80's was
breathtaking. But they deflated just as rapidly. That would not happen in high end coins. I think that the public in general
has a certain degree of fear about watches
because they are machines and most people don't understand them. In the end,most things are worth what someone is willing to pay for them and until the public has a bit more
knowledge about them, they will still be a
mystery.

[Tom McIntyre]

As John and Jon have said, the market determines the value. There is a very small market for American Watches above $10,000 in price. There is a much larger market for European watches in that price range and grand complications routinely sell for over $25,000.

If there are only 4 or 5 collectors of the high end American watches, it is inconceivable that they will not eventually get to know one another and segregate their collecting interests to avoid paying more than they must for the items they collect.

I don't think this is dishonest or under handed. It is the way the world works. There would need to be a significant number of collectors at the high end, probably one hundred or more, to have watches approach the value of coins.

I believe the reason there are relatively few watch collectors is that: (1) They are not quite as easy to hide as stamps and coins and therefore, they do not provide the same illegal tax and litigation shelter. (2)It is much too easy to improve the condition of watches, thus making grading difficult. (3) There are too few collectors at the very low end of $10 to $25 watches to provide an avenue for collecting for very young collectors.

There may be other factors, but I think these are the main ones.

The issue of private label rarity vs. model and grade rarity remains a thorny one for me. I do enjoy interesting private labels and having the lowest known serial number of an important watch is significant to me also. However, for me the combination of high grade and low production numbers is the key to collecting.


------------------
Tom McIntyre
President, NAWCC Chapter 174
Pocket Horology Web (http://www.pocketwatch.org)
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.mcintyre.com/McIntyre)

[Jon Hanson]

Readers,

Re elite collectors, rare American watches, prices, the market, demand, rarity, etc., etc., etc.: I have never, ever read (or heard) so much garbage in all my life (and I have been a major collector for many years in other fields in addition to watches).

The misinformation continues-no wonder most of the major players don't read or post on this MB. This stuff is beginning to resemble not just sour grapes but just plain stupidity!

Some people just have to have a soapbox!

Jon Hanson

------------------
Jon Hanson, moderator, nawcc#8801

[This message has been edited by Jon Hanson (edited 12-03-2000).]

[darren]

Tom McIntyre wrote:
(3) There are too few collectors at the very low end of $10 to $25 watches to provide an avenue for collecting for very young collectors.

Tom:
Could you expand on this a little more. First, are you talking dollar watches or current values? Also, why is it necessary to have a given number of collectors of these watches as to provide an avenue for "very young" collectors (do you mean chronological or "new to collecting"). As a collector at the low end ( not necessarily sub-$100, and a new collector) - I don't see the connection.

[Greg Davis]

Something to bear in mind... rarity alone does not determine value. I happen to be able to sew. I have sewn several pillow covers out of various colors and types of leather. Each of my pillows is absolutely unique. They are of high wuality, hand-sewn very carefully and attentively. There are no others in the world like them. They are also utterly devoid of value. If rarity alone determined value, my pillows would be as close to priceless as the nickle mentioned in the base message.

In order for rarity to have an impact on value there must be more than one person seeking after the thing. If only one person in the world wants something, it matters not at all that the thing that person seeks is unique... that thing is still valueless because nobody else wants it.

Value, then, becomes a function of rarity and demand.

As has been noted, there are more coin collectors extant than watch collectors. And though we may be loathe to admit it, they are on the whole better organized and better informed than watch collectors too. Sure, we are getting better organized now... but our hobby is considerably younger than numismatics.

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that a singularly rare coin would fetch a higher price than a singularly rare watch. At least, not if that person understands the relationship of rarity to demand and value.

But if you need further education on the subject, I suggest you go create something completely unique and try to sell it. You will probably discover what most artists already know. Value generation is not as simple as one might think.


------------------
Regards,

- Greg

[Jon Hanson]

Mike,

What secrecy? The major players certainly don't need this message board to learn ANYTHING about early American watches. Most have been at it a lot longer than any (or all) of the most vocal writers and readers combined on this MB.

Look at it another way; the movers and shakers of the early American subculture create THAT market. They are in control of their market and they should be-THEY ARE THE ONES SPENDING THE MONEY, THEIR MONEY. What others price, write, think, or state is really of no importance or consequence (to the "real players"). ("You just got to know your limitation!") :biggrin:

Jon Hanson, nawcc#8801

------------------
Jon Hanson, moderator, nawcc#8801

[Jon Hanson]

John,

I just noticed the following in which I must comment:

"As for JH's comment that "truly rare watches have been under priced, purposely, to aid dealers [and collectors] in acquisitions."; I think I know what he means, but the statement, on its face, cannot be true."

You do not know what I meant by my quoted statement above. I cannot put what I know in print here. Call me today and will tell you the facts. Then you can decide how to deal with it. WHAT I SAID ABOVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Jon H.


------------------
Jon Hanson, moderator, nawcc#8801

[Tom McIntyre]

Tom:
Could you expand on this a little more. First, are you talking dollar watches or current values? Also, why is it necessary to have a given number of collectors of these watches as to provide an avenue for "very young" collectors (do you mean chronological or "new to collecting"). As a collector at the low end ( not necessarily sub-$100, and a new collector) - I don't see the connection.[HR][HR]

I was comparing watches to stamps and coins that have very low cost items that children can begin collecting at the age of 9 or 10. This creates a huge volume of collectors with the result that there remain large numbers of "collectors" who are interested in these items at a later and more affluent time in ther lives.

Beginning watch collectors, in my experience, start out with railroad watches and try to acquire them at the low end of the price range, usually with a problem that they hope to get fixed. In many cases this results in disappointment when they ultimately begin to move up scale and try to sell their early purchases. In my opinion, losses of 20% or more should be expected unless there has been a very strong inflationary trend in the general economy during the collecting period. I think this learning period is 3 to 5 years depending on how active the new collector is.

That contrasts with coins and stamps where the collector typically learns most of what can be known within a year or two at the age of 12 with a very small investment.

Many other disagree strongly with these opinions. :smile:

------------------
Tom McIntyre
President, NAWCC Chapter 174
Pocket Horology Web (http://www.pocketwatch.org)
Tommy the JOAT's Web (http://www.mcintyre.com/McIntyre)

[BUZZ BAZARNICKI]

Watches...coins...guns...All are collectible and of course,demand plays a big part in the value of anything as does scarcity.WE ALL consider the items in our own collections to be of greater value than listed in any book, Don't we Jon?? http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I know the watches in my collection are much rarer and more valuable than quoted in any book,mart,auction,or other publication!!

I remember what someone once told me years ago concerning collecting things...When it comes to having the potential of appreciation and accessibility to young and old alike....the value of STAMPS can't be licked!!! http://www.nawcc.org/ubb/tongue.gif :biggrin:


------------------
BUZZ BAZARNICKI
ANTIQUARIAN HOROLOGIST
HAMILTON SPECIALIST
MEMBER #120851 NAWCC
PAST V.P.CHAPTER # 52

[darren]

Tom,

Thanks for the response. It certainly clears things up and what you opine about new pocket watch collectors going for low end railroads seems pretty reasonable. - Darren