Is interest in AP sinking?

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by Halothane

Interesting take. So you don't feel the 16202 is an "upgrade"? You prefer a non quick set date? Or you are just more of a vintage guy? If you do love the 15202 it's a great time to buy! I think it's on life support after the release of the 16202.

This has to do with heritage, and Im in the same camp..zero interest in a normal 16202, other than a unique materials model. For the ST, 15202 has the heart.

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by vliberman

All of the PP sports watches are at premium, a few of AP are. There is not one PP reference that is trading close to MSRP. Plenty of APs are significantly below MSRP.

I think your assessment of premium on AP is generous. 15202s are trading low 40s. I doubt 16202 go for $80k…

AP is not participating in non sports category so comparison is mute.

Originally Posted by vliberman

If u follow the argument, I am only comparing sports PP models (Aquanauts and Nautilus) to AP as it does not make any non sports watches. In that comparison, PP destroys AP in terms of secondary market value retention. Given the similarity between two from the design and functionality aspect, the difference must be attributed to the interest in AP sinking, the original point of this conversation. Before some members started to worry about syntax and grammar.

For starters, I'm using only one source, Watch Charts for consistency sake. I'm not picking Chrono prices for one reference and Moda for another to skew the numbers in my favor.

AP and PP have very different business models. Most of PP's production is non sport models and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is mostly trading far below MSRP. AP mostly produces sport watches, RO's in this case and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is trading at or above MSRP. So, which brand is retaining better value as a whole? You need to look at what each brand is built around and compare as a whole.

If PP produced complicated sport models, would it destroy AP in secondary market value as you state? It doesn't matter because PP just doesn't and there is no point in what if's. PP produces far too few sport models in the overall production volume, thus creating more scarcity and the secondary market prices reflect it. If PP started producing the same % of their production in sport models with complications like AP, will it still destroy AP in secondary market values? You argument is a moot point as we won't know because PP will never go that route according to Thierry Stern.

I don't understand your stance on only comparing ROO/Codes to Nautilus/Aquanaut to skew the value numbers in your favor. You also do not take into consideration the scarcity or lack thereof effect on how many sport models each brand produces. I personally think AP RO's value retention has faired better than I thought considering it's 60% of AP's production and the large price increases it has gone through during the COVID craze.

I get that you don't like AP and that's fine by me, but you don't need to try and convince everyone else. You just need to convince yourself and not spend money with the brand. You can sh*t on AP all you want, but AP collectors will continue to collect AP's.

I still don't understand the value retention debates. Watch collecting used to be a hobby where you bought watches you enjoyed, losing value was a given, and you went into it fully understanding that. I miss the old days on TRF where value retention wasn't even part of the conversation.

[Ichiran]

I only get 1 AP from the Boutique in 7 years, and waiting for my 2nd. I don't see AP sinking at all, at least not in my area.

[Octagon Guy]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

For starters, I'm using only one source, Watch Charts for consistency sake. I'm not picking Chrono prices for one reference and Moda for another to skew the numbers in my favor.

AP and PP have very different business models. Most of PP's production is non sport models and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is mostly trading far below MSRP. AP mostly produces sport watches, RO's in this case and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is trading at or above MSRP. So, which brand is retaining better value as a whole? You need to look at what each brand is built around and compare as a whole.

If PP produced complicated sport models, would it destroy AP in secondary market value as you state? It doesn't matter because PP just doesn't and there is no point in what if's. PP produces far too few sport models in the overall production volume, thus creating more scarcity and the secondary market prices reflect it. If PP started producing the same % of their production in sport models with complications like AP, will it still destroy AP in secondary market values? You argument is a moot point as we won't know because PP will never go that route according to Thierry Stern.

I don't understand your stance on only comparing ROO/Codes to Nautilus/Aquanaut to skew the value numbers in your favor. You also do not take into consideration the scarcity or lack thereof effect on how many sport models each brand produces. I personally think AP RO's value retention has faired better than I thought considering it's 60% of AP's production and the large price increases it has gone through during the COVID craze.

I get that you don't like AP and that's fine by me, but you don't need to try and convince everyone else. You just need to convince yourself and not spend money with the brand. You can sh*t on AP all you want, but AP collectors will continue to collect AP's.

I still don't understand the value retention debates. Watch collecting used to be a hobby where you bought watches you enjoyed, losing value was a given, and you went into it fully understanding that. I miss the old days on TRF where value retention wasn't even part of the conversation.

101% agree! Value retention is never supposed to be part of a hobby. It destroys the passion and takes away the joy associated with it. I love to travel and that has zero value retention but the happiness and experience I derived from it is invaluable.

[Octagon Guy]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

I only get 1 AP from the Boutique in 7 years, and waiting for my 2nd. I don't see AP sinking at all, at least not in my area.

I'm on the list for a 3 hand basic CODE for a year and still waiting.

[SMD]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

For starters, I'm using only one source, Watch Charts for consistency sake. I'm not picking Chrono prices for one reference and Moda for another to skew the numbers in my favor.

AP and PP have very different business models. Most of PP's production is non sport models and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is mostly trading far below MSRP. AP mostly produces sport watches, RO's in this case and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is trading at or above MSRP. So, which brand is retaining better value as a whole? You need to look at what each brand is built around and compare as a whole.

If PP produced complicated sport models, would it destroy AP in secondary market value as you state? It doesn't matter because PP just doesn't and there is no point in what if's. PP produces far too few sport models in the overall production volume, thus creating more scarcity and the secondary market prices reflect it. If PP started producing the same % of their production in sport models with complications like AP, will it still destroy AP in secondary market values? You argument is a moot point as we won't know because PP will never go that route according to Thierry Stern.

I don't understand your stance on only comparing ROO/Codes to Nautilus/Aquanaut to skew the value numbers in your favor. You also do not take into consideration the scarcity or lack thereof effect on how many sport models each brand produces. I personally think AP RO's value retention has faired better than I thought considering it's 60% of AP's production and the large price increases it has gone through during the COVID craze.

I get that you don't like AP and that's fine by me, but you don't need to try and convince everyone else. You just need to convince yourself and not spend money with the brand. You can sh*t on AP all you want, but AP collectors will continue to collect AP's.

I still don't understand the value retention debates. Watch collecting used to be a hobby where you bought watches you enjoyed, losing value was a given, and you went into it fully understanding that. I miss the old days on TRF where value retention wasn't even part of the conversation.

Great post. Far more patient than I for trolls.

[APhound]

I have them all. Nautilus, aquanaut, complicated Pateks, royal oaks, offshores, code, etc. prob have more money in my pateks so not bias here. The APs are so much more exciting and I fantasize of owning them so much more than I do pateks. I never day dream about pateks but I get on the AP site all the time and am blown away with what they do across the board.
And as far as value, I think I’m down on every single watch I own. Who cares. This isn’t my job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Akacoke]

I'm not seeing a interest sink . I don't agree. I won't be convinced unless I can walk into a boutique and buy a RO, ROC or Even the 38mm ROC from the case. I honestly don't believe that will ever be the situation, but never say never. Hopefully one day we can turn back time to 2009.

And who cares if AP is a "royal oak company". We can all like what we like and respect that. Instead of trying to convince the others otherwise.

[In-N-Out]

ST demand is not declining one bit, but secondary prices are. That’s because the market equilibrium prices is the intersection of Sell-In demand and supply, not Sell-through demand. It’s a basic reseller model: SI less ST = change in inventory.

So for the last few years you saw total demand equal ST + increase in inventory.

Now you see a situation where inventory is decreasing amongst all grey dealers since borrowing money isn’t free anymore + manufacturers like Rolex are still pumping 1M watches a year (or 2,700 a day).

So ST demand (consumer demand) for AP isn’t declining. But overall SI demand is (because the resellers’ demand is declining, which is only one portion of the formula).

Usually lifetime SI = ST (since inventory will reach 0) for every consumer device when it reaches end of life, but watches uniquely don’t have an EOL period, and great dealers will continue to hold some level of inventory (measured in weeks of stock). No one knows what the aggregate WoS the reseller industry will settle at. My guess is that there’s still a ton of inventory being held by grey dealers that will eventually be sold through to end consumers, which will further decrease prices in the short term. This includes but is not limited to AP

[Mr.GL]

Thanks for sharing the information

I amm not sure how a prestigious dealer's opinion represents the whole watch market industry.

If the prestigious dealer can't flip for a profit = meaning a brand demand is shrinking.

How prestigious is the dealer? Just one, and it represents where the whole market is going .



Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[Mr.GL]

Originally Posted by Mr.GL

Thanks for sharing the information

I amm not sure how a prestigious dealer's opinion represents the whole watch market industry.

If the prestigious dealer can't flip for a profit = meaning a brand demand is shrinking.

How prestigious is the dealer? Just one, and it represents where the whole market is going .



Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

We happen to be living in era when sports models are in demand.

To be specific, the title should be is Royal Oak demand shrinking and not the brand itself.

Bear in mind, Gerald Genta created the first luxury sport model , which is Royal Oak first and followed by Nautilus .

I do own the above-mentioned brands, I love it for whatever reasons, price point , workmanship, and the experiences with SA. A lot of factors are involved.




Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[Mr.GL]

I do know a big dealer in where I live. She doesn't deal with mainstream models. She only does the high-end sports models and limited edition models. Rolex , AP , Pp, Fp journe , cartier ,Uwerks, and the list goes on. Is she not prestigious....

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[AperolSpritz]

In my area it is not about AP. PP is the same story, my nautiluses went down 50% since market high...

The whole market is going down. And due to the reduction in resale premium and grey dealers more cautious about holding watched on balance sheet, flipper demand has reduced incredibly. It has hit AP perhaps a bit more than PP but it has hurt everyone.

Ask you Vacheron dealer how easy it is to sell Overseas these days lol...

[Mr.GL]

Originally Posted by AperolSpritz

In my area it is not about AP. PP is the same story, my nautiluses went down 50% since market high...

The whole market is going down. And due to the reduction in resale premium and grey dealers more cautious about holding watched on balance sheet, flipper demand has reduced incredibly. It has hit AP perhaps a bit more than PP but it has hurt everyone.

Ask you Vacheron dealer how easy it is to sell Overseas these days lol...

Well said.

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[Mr.GL]

Originally Posted by Mr.GL

Well said.

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

From this headline, VC demand is shrinking! )

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[watchman124]

Originally Posted by In-N-Out

ST demand is not declining one bit, but secondary prices are. That’s because the market equilibrium prices is the intersection of Sell-In demand and supply, not Sell-through demand. It’s a basic reseller model: SI less ST = change in inventory.

So for the last few years you saw total demand equal ST + increase in inventory.

Now you see a situation where inventory is decreasing amongst all grey dealers since borrowing money isn’t free anymore + manufacturers like Rolex are still pumping 1M watches a year (or 2,700 a day).

So ST demand (consumer demand) for AP isn’t declining. But overall SI demand is (because the resellers’ demand is declining, which is only one portion of the formula).

Usually lifetime SI = ST (since inventory will reach 0) for every consumer device when it reaches end of life, but watches uniquely don’t have an EOL period, and great dealers will continue to hold some level of inventory (measured in weeks of stock). No one knows what the aggregate WoS the reseller industry will settle at. My guess is that there’s still a ton of inventory being held by grey dealers that will eventually be sold through to end consumers, which will further decrease prices in the short term. This includes but is not limited to AP

The part where I think AP is taking a hit as a Company though is they used to be able to sell a lot of different pieces or push them on clients in order to get them to buy Royal Oaks. So no I don’t think demand for Royal Oaks are falling, but demand for the rest of the catalogue seems to be falling substantially for the Concepts / Tourbillons / Complicated Codes / Complicated Offshores etc.

I know this because l recently was offered an RD3 a watch that was previously really easy for them to sell and then it made its way around to many of my collector friends as well, which is how I know they couldn’t sell it that easily.

People still snap up Royal oaks - sure, but they are certainly having challenges moving almost anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoingPlaces]

- Investing in AP as a business (grey/used) is catching a falling knife. No thanks.
- Collaborations with rappers and celebrities turned too many people off.
- One trick pony, RO or bust. Over diluted model.
- Inflated pricing.
- Many customers migrated to other brands due to impossible to get pieces.

All this being said, CEO has work cut out. Cutting production is a start but not the solution. Must be a visionary. What does the brand look like 5 or 10 years from now?

[Cru Jones]

There was a time several years when I dreamt of owning an RO (two or three-hander). Then came the cartoon models and celebrity focus and insane price increases, and the dream faded for me. I still casually admire some of their watches but no longer even consider saving for one.

But, to be fair, I probably was never (and never will be) a typical AP target customer.

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

For starters, I'm using only one source, Watch Charts for consistency sake. I'm not picking Chrono prices for one reference and Moda for another to skew the numbers in my favor.

AP and PP have very different business models. Most of PP's production is non sport models and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is mostly trading far below MSRP. AP mostly produces sport watches, RO's in this case and that is their mainstay. That mainstay is trading at or above MSRP. So, which brand is retaining better value as a whole? You need to look at what each brand is built around and compare as a whole.

If PP produced complicated sport models, would it destroy AP in secondary market value as you state? It doesn't matter because PP just doesn't and there is no point in what if's. PP produces far too few sport models in the overall production volume, thus creating more scarcity and the secondary market prices reflect it. If PP started producing the same % of their production in sport models with complications like AP, will it still destroy AP in secondary market values? You argument is a moot point as we won't know because PP will never go that route according to Thierry Stern.

I don't understand your stance on only comparing ROO/Codes to Nautilus/Aquanaut to skew the value numbers in your favor. You also do not take into consideration the scarcity or lack thereof effect on how many sport models each brand produces. I personally think AP RO's value retention has faired better than I thought considering it's 60% of AP's production and the large price increases it has gone through during the COVID craze.

I get that you don't like AP and that's fine by me, but you don't need to try and convince everyone else. You just need to convince yourself and not spend money with the brand. You can sh*t on AP all you want, but AP collectors will continue to collect AP's.

I still don't understand the value retention debates. Watch collecting used to be a hobby where you bought watches you enjoyed, losing value was a given, and you went into it fully understanding that. I miss the old days on TRF where value retention wasn't even part of the conversation.

The value retention debate is the only way one can establish whether the “interest in AP is sinking”, the original point of this debate which u seem to forget. The null hypothesis is it is not. If not, then value of all comparable watches made by comparable companies are in decline. Take PP, take their spots models and one rejects null hypothesis. Now do u understand?????

On a person note, if u read carefully, most people here who speak harshly of AP don’t dislike it, including myself. I own its product. What most people dislike is the direction the company took including lack of horological strength! Now, it is our duty wrt other collectors to inform them of our opinions no matter how much that offends you!!

Second, I never came at you personally yet you have. You speak on my behalf when u infer on my behalf, that is not cool. I can do that myself in my broken English.

[johnsonsxusfrt]

Originally Posted by vliberman

All of the PP sports watches are at premium, a few of AP are. There is not one PP reference that is trading close to MSRP. Plenty of APs are significantly below MSRP.

This guy is a troll
almost all PP models are trading at or below MSRP except for the two flagship lines.

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by johnsonsxusfrt

This guy is a troll
almost all PP models are trading at or below MSRP except for the two flagship lines.

Did u read the argument??? It says SPORTS models? Do you know of one????? Who is the troll? If u are lacking reading comprehension, my apologies, it is considered a disability

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by johnsonsxusfrt

This guy is a troll
almost all PP models are trading at or below MSRP except for the two flagship lines.

I responded a bit harsh to this remark. However, I feel that this person fits a definition of a troll to a T. He jumps with an argument that was already discussed and certainly understood in a context of a thread, offers insult. That is exactly what Trolls are with zero patience on my part. Sir, if u choose to partake in debate, understand the debate! Think b4 u speak!

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by vliberman

The value retention debate is the only way one can establish whether the “interest in AP is sinking”, the original point of this debate which u seem to forget. The null hypothesis is it is not. If not, then value of all comparable watches made by comparable companies are in decline. Take PP, take their spots models and one rejects null hypothesis. Now do u understand?????

On a person note, if u read carefully, most people here who speak harshly of AP don’t dislike it, including myself. I own its product. What most people dislike is the direction the company took including lack of horological strength! Now, it is our duty wrt other collectors to inform them of our opinions no matter how much that offends you!!

Second, I never came at you personally yet you have. You speak on my behalf when u infer on my behalf, that is not cool. I can do that myself in my broken English.

First off, I am not coming at you personally and I have not spoken on your behalf. Let's get that straight. I don't know you and I have nothing against you. I'm merely attempting to point out that the way you present your argument is misguided.

Reality is, interest in ALL watches brands are sinking if you only use value retention as your only metric. Rolex prices are mostly below MSRP with the exception of a few models. As I noted earlier, most PP models are trading below MSRP with the exception of Nautilus/Aqua. Doesn't that mean interest in those brands are sinking too? You just can't point to a narrow data set like ROO and Code secondary prices and conclude the brand is sinking.

I will disagree with you on the detractors comment. Most that come here to bash the brand for whatever reason obviously do not like the brand IMO. There are a few that frequent this sub forum where that is all they do. As far as the brand direction goes, everyone has differing opinions. Just remember that it's been around for a 150 years and one of the only three truly independent big brands left in the industry. The brand has gone through more ups and downs in this business than our collecting life. I'm sure they will figure it out moving forward.

There are many AP collectors here with numerous AP pieces in our collections. I don't think we need anyone to feel like it's their duty to come here and try to educate us with their opinions of brand direction or value retention. We spend enough time in this hobby to have made up our own minds on both subjects.

More importantly, collectors with the most pieces (most $$ invested with AP) should be the ones screaming at the top of the mountain about value retention no? Yet, you don't see that as these collectors don't put secondary market values very high on their priority list, myself included. At the same time, those are the collectors these detractors spend most of their time trying to convince otherwise. Kinda seems like a waste of time if you ask me.

Interesting observation for you. A big majority of the long time members here with big/bigger collections don't openly bash other brands ie, @Conkers, @Ichiran, @SMD, @BenLee, @VogelPhoenix, 7sins, etc.. to name a few. If the brand is not for them, they will merely state that it's not for them. You never see them state this brand sucks and that brand is better than the other because it's kind of childish if you think about it. It's a like a 10 year old telling his friend his dad's car is faster than his.... What I'm trying to say is this. I feel like true collectors respect this hobby as a whole, including all brands. They respect every brand for what they are. If they don't like them, they simply vote with their wallets and not purchase the product.


Again, not coming at you or trying to insult you. Just expressing my view on this whole debate and addressing you as you seem to be the most vocal on this topic in this thread

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

First off, I am not coming at you personally and I have not spoken on your behalf. Let's get that straight. I don't know you and I have nothing against you. I'm merely attempting to point out that the way you present your argument is misguided.

Reality is, interest in ALL watches brands are sinking if you only use value retention as your only metric. Rolex prices are mostly below MSRP with the exception of a few models. As I noted earlier, most PP models are trading below MSRP with the exception of Nautilus/Aqua. Doesn't that mean interest in those brands are sinking too? You just can't point to a narrow data set like ROO and Code secondary prices and conclude the brand is sinking.

I will disagree with you on the detractors comment. Most that come here to bash the brand for whatever reason obviously do not like the brand IMO. There are a few that frequent this sub forum where that is all they do. As far as the brand direction goes, everyone has differing opinions. Just remember that it's been around for a 150 years and one of the only three truly independent big brands left in the industry. The brand has gone through more ups and downs in this business than our collecting life. I'm sure they will figure it out moving forward.

There are many AP collectors here with numerous AP pieces in our collections. I don't think we need anyone to feel like it's their duty to come here and try to educate us with their opinions of brand direction or value retention. We spend enough time in this hobby to have made up our own minds on both subjects.

More importantly, collectors with the most pieces (most $$ invested with AP) should be the ones screaming at the top of the mountain about value retention no? Yet, you don't see that as these collectors don't put secondary market values very high on their priority list, myself included. At the same time, those are the collectors these detractors spend most of their time trying to convince otherwise. Kinda seems like a waste of time if you ask me.

Interesting observation for you. A big majority of the long time members here with big/bigger collections don't openly bash other brands ie, @Conkers, @Ichiran, @SMD, @BenLee, @VogelPhoenix, 7sins, etc.. to name a few. If the brand is not for them, they will merely state that it's not for them. You never see them state this brand sucks and that brand is better than the other because it's kind of childish if you think about it. It's a like a 10 year old telling his friend his dad's car is faster than his.... What I'm trying to say is this. I feel like true collectors respect this hobby as a whole, including all brands. They respect every brand for what they are. If they don't like them, they simply vote with their wallets and not purchase the product.


Again, not coming at you or trying to insult you. Just expressing my view on this whole debate and addressing you as you seem to be the most vocal on this topic in this thread

So can u opine on the logic of value retention as a means to decide on the initial concern of the thread? U stated u don’t understand why I use it.. the first part of my initial reply to u deals with it. Thx

[johnsonsxusfrt]

Originally Posted by vliberman

Did u read the argument??? It says SPORTS models? Do you know of one????? Who is the troll? If u are lacking reading comprehension, my apologies, it is considered a disability

you should state your argument more clearly. PP sports models and Royal Oaks are trading with similar % premiums in the secondary market with the exception of some of the discontinued iterations. and everything is still drop drop dropping :)

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by vliberman

So can u opine on the logic of value retention as a means to decide on the initial concern of the thread? U stated u don’t understand why I use it.. the first part of my initial reply to u deals with it. Thx

Yes, you can use value retention as a means for the sake of your argument. It works if you only use it to address the OP's original question. You also shouldn't only use ROO/CODE as the sole barometer of the brands health. You are skewing the data and it does not paint a complete picture.

The issue is when you brought in another brand, PP (sport watches only) and used it for comparison. That is where your logic is misguided. Once you bring other brands into play, you have to apply the same metric across those brands and across all model lines, not just Nautilus/Aqua and ask the same question. Is interest in Rolex and PP sinking too? Then the answer is, YES. Interest in all of those brands are sinking if you're using value retention as the metric. Please remember, the OP's question was addressed as AP as a brand and not specific model lines. Where your argument fails is you frame it like AP is the only brand with sinking interest in that comparison only using specific model lines.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Mr.GL

Thanks for sharing the information

I amm not sure how a prestigious dealer's opinion represents the whole watch market industry.

If the prestigious dealer can't flip for a profit = meaning a brand demand is shrinking.

How prestigious is the dealer? Just one, and it represents where the whole market is going .



Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

Why have you not included in your comment the the report that AP new CEO is concerned about "desirability" and is considering a production cut?

A production cut to do what? Increase resale values because there will less watches on the market....Values stabilize. People want them again.

This may also fix some QC concerns that have been reported.

[Tomas Eriksson]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

The incoming CEO seems to have concerns about diminishing demand?

Enough so to scale back production and seems to state so.

https://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...-ilaria-resta/


Which, I think is the right move...

That was a comforting read, thank you for sharing. I truly hope they cut down on production and see where the market demand lands. Exclusivity is very attractive and it’s a balance act to maximize revenue short and long term.

In the mean time I’m enjoying my RO and ROOs to the fullest, still my favorite brand.

Some quotes for the article for others in the thread:

‘“𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵,” 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥. “𝘐’𝘮 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘐 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴.”’

‘𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘶𝘱, 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴. “𝘈𝘴 𝘐 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶,” 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴. “𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦.”’

[Mr.GL]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Why have you not included in your comment the the report that AP new CEO is concerned about "desirability" and is considering a production cut?



A production cut to do what? Increase resale values because there will less watches on the market....Values stabilize. People want them again.



This may also fix some QC concerns that have been reported.

The article states that she may stop growth, which doesn't necessarily mean the demand is shrinking. I haven't read she is concerned about "desirability".

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by johnsonsxusfrt

you should state your argument more clearly. PP sports models and Royal Oaks are trading with similar % premiums in the secondary market with the exception of some of the discontinued iterations. and everything is still drop drop dropping :)

That is actually not true… most AP RO models trade close to MSRP, none PP sports models are… they trade at significant premium and hence the argument