B (3:01)

Yeah, and just a little thing. If you do have a guest coming, do make sure that you include their name, because if you put your name down twice, it will be de. Duped. So that means it'll only be.

A (3:11)

Oh, yeah, that's interesting.

B (3:12)

Yeah. If you register three times, you'll.

A (3:14)

There's no plus ones.

B (3:15)

No plus ones. So for the security of all of us, it's just important that you do that. This public service announcement has concluded.

A (3:21)

All right, well, today it's the Watch brand draft. The first ever collective or open work watch brand draft. And, you know, watch drafts have become this thing of lore in watch podcasts.

B (3:36)

Before you even go there, let's make sure we're clear. We're not doing this from a watch standpoint.

A (3:40)

No, no. This is a watch brand draft. We're drafting watch businesses.

B (3:44)

Exactly.

A (3:45)

So that's the idea here. We're not drafting watches, but we're drafting watch brands in three different categories. Before we get to those categories, let's set some important ground rules for the businesses we're drafting. So the idea here is we're not picking a watch we'd like to wear or own. We're picking a watch business. A watch brand we'd like to own and operate. Yes. So your choice here means you're stuck with this brand. You got to own it and operate it and tell us why. So we're going to pick in three different categories, but there are some important ground rules. First of all, we. No ap, Patek or Rolex. Those brands are off the table. Anyone else we should take off the table or leave it there? Yeah.

B (4:25)

No Richard Meal? Like, what are we doing?

A (4:27)

No Richard Meal either. Second, this is also really important, especially for the listening pleasure of the audience here and to make sure there's no conflicts of interest. No brands we carry at Collective.

B (4:38)

Nope.

A (4:38)

So I. I haven't seen yours. You haven't seen mine? I don't know what you have, but hopefully you haven't picked any. Any brand that we. We carry. I made sure.

B (4:47)

Just need a minute here.

A (4:48)

I made sure we didn't. So there. Commercial, commercial plugs. And you know, look, some of the. Part of the reasons we may select some of these brands is based on constructive feedback, not just, oh, we'd love to own them and sit back and print money at some. Some things. Maybe some selections could be, at least in my case, like I kind of have a different vision for how I would run this thing.

B (5:09)

You want to put them on a pip?

A (5:11)

They're on. Some of these might be on a performance improvement improvement plan. Not, not really.

B (5:15)

But we do that because we want to see them grow. Yeah. You know, it's not that we're trying to push them out.

A (5:19)

No, no, no, no. But again, we're only picking things here from, from a place of love and admiration and seeing, you know, potential and opportunity. So. And then the final thing, this will be a snake style draft. So I did flip a coin. Asher, it looks like you're going to go first, then I'll go, then I'll go again, then you'll go, then you'll go again. Until we reach the end. So there will be six picks total in three categories. The three categories are first, an independent brand. Yeah. Second, a micro brand or what we would call a challenger brand in the $5,000 and below category. And then finally a mainstream luxury brand. There may be some room for interpretation in these. We can discuss that as that. As that comes up. I don't think any of mine. One of mine might be kind of controversial. Let to see if you think it interesting, if it counts. So Asher, you have first pick. You won the coin flip and the first category here is independent brand. So you're picking in the draft. Which independent brand do you want to own and operate and why?

B (6:25)

Okay. In this imaginary world, I would love to own MB&F. And there's a few reasons why. One of them really is a kind of a technical thing that although a profound thing that Max has talked about. I think he mentioned it maybe once or twice in our podcast, but he certainly talked about in general, which is the relationship that he has with his technical director. And to me, what's so exciting about what comes out of that brand or really just what comes out of independent watches in general is when you have somebody and there are other brands like this. Konstantin Chaikin is like this to a degree. Where there is an idea for a watch or work is like this, you know, where there's an idea for a watch and they back in in many ways to how to make that work from a technical standpoint. But what's governing the idea is the concept of the watch. And to me, you know, because I believe that storytelling is such a critical component of building a brand, whether it's a watch brand or frankly, anything else. MB&F is one of the top brands to be able to tell a meaningful story, but have it also be easy to understand through the creation of unique watch. And if I was going to be leading a brand for, you know, years, decades to come, I'd want to know that I had unlimited road in front of me creatively. And obviously Max himself is an incredible creative. But what's interesting is, you know, over the years, certainly with the MAD editions, he started to bring other people into that creative mix to create continuity, while, you know, for the decades that he's still with us, God willing, that will make sure that the MB and F stands for that kind of creativity and risk taking and firm belief that watches are a meaningful canvas for storytelling. And he has the technical directors and the technical engineers on board to be able to make that plausible, which is really, really, really key. Plus, I think I'd be walking into a relatively healthy business from being candid with you. You have investment from Chanel, you have prudent, from what we all know, financial management. You know, we have a strong and dedicated team of people. If, you know, whenever we go and visit MB&F, it is the same group of people there. Like there's very little churn. Very little churn tells me that the people who are there are happy and are proud of it. And, you know, companies are made up of. Of the people, you know, without the people is nothing. So I think all of those ingredients come together to offer what would be a really exciting company to lead because its success or failure would be entirely driven by how much you support the people who are there. And the clients who love those watches are equally supportive and curious. So it's kind of, it's kind of a little bit of a layup because they all, they did all the hard work already, you know what I mean? But if I was walking around with billions of dollars and I was just going to make an offer, that would be at the top of my list.

A (9:18)

Yeah. One of the things Max spoke about when it was announced that Chanel bought a stake in the business, was that a big part of the reason for that investment in bringing them in as a partner was to have a, a succession plan? Yeah. And this is a brand, of course. Look, the MB and MBNF is, is Max Booster. And of course he is inexorably tied to the brand and one of the, the, you know, biggest personalities in all of, of of watchmaking, for sure. And we, I don't want to undersell Max's, you know, he's the key player in that business. However, this is a business and a brand that has given thought to how it operates beyond Max. So part of it is just even in the name, which invites collaboration and other people to come in and make their mark, which is the, and friends. It's not just about Max. It's about people who, other people who.

B (10:16)

It's not, it's not booster. He. Yeah.

A (10:18)

Yeah. So there's a sort of this collaborative nature to the brand and the name and what it stands for and the kind of the core business model itself. There's clearly a succession plan that's been thought through and put in place and the calling card of the brand. You're right. It's not a particular design aesthetic. And there are brands that are built around a particular aesthetic, and that's great. And the world should have brands like that too. There are brands that are built around a certain kind of watch ap. There are brands that are built around all sorts of things. What MB&F its core is built around is collaboration and doing things and creating watches or horological art that is conceptual in nature. You look at the watch, you know, it's a frog, you know, so, or a house or whatever it might be. And that is very extensible. And you can imagine how other people would come in over time and not just collaborate with Max, but could potentially take the reins and continue to do just that. So it's a brand, I think, even if you're just thinking cynically from like the defensibility of the business standpoint. Right. And how well could this brand survive an ownership change? And so some guy from California coming in and taking it over. This is a brand that I think is actually, despite, you know, your love and admiration of what they do and just wanting to be a part of it, this is a brand, I think, that is actually uniquely set up to, to, to continue.

B (11:47)

You can't pick this one. This is my pick.

A (11:49)

Yeah. So no, I, I, I think it's, it's a smart one. I think all of these brands we have here, like I said, are from a place of love and admiration, but there's prob that make them good candidates for, for a takeover, as it were, which, by the way, if you or I were actually to take over any of these brands, I can't even imagine. I mean, I'm sure it would be a total disaster. We've never made a watch in our lives. But again, that's not really the purpose. This is fantasy land here, so. All right, guy, can I get my first pick? All right, so this might be the controversial one, and you have to tell me if you're going to let this one pass. So my pick for an independent brand. And look, I know we said, and part of it was to avoid the independent brand category. You know, we said no AP Patek, Rolex or Richard Mille. These are all technically independent brands. They're independently owned, they're not publicly traded. So mine is Chopar. You tell me if you think that they, they, they qualify here. Yeah, they're independent. They do.

B (12:48)

They're absolutely independent. I'm just sort of, I want to, I want to hear your logic on this one because you know how I feel about Chopar.

A (12:55)

Well, I know you, you love Chopar. You're, you're the person who opened my eyes to this, to this brand. I think. Look, Chopard, in my view is a sleeping giant. And if I think back to 10, 15 years ago, when Grand Seiko was considered to be this sleeping giant, you know, this brand that was really for the cognizanti for people who really appreciated watches, you know, these were the people. You know, Jack Forster was famously an early proponent of the brand. It was really the people who knew watches that knew Grand Seiko had all the ingredients and all the potential to be something amazing and was already something amazing that the rest of the world had yet to discover. I kind of feel that way about Chopard now. Chopard is certainly in a different category than, than Grand Seiko. Forget just its independent and family owned structure, but they're in a different segment of, of the market than Grand Seiko. But I feel the same way, which is this is a brand that is unimpeachable in its watchmaking, that makes fantastic products that do get renown and acclaim, but still not at the level that

B (14:08)

I think they should see. It's interesting you say that because that's, I thought you were gonna say something different because, you know, for you and for me and for our business and like our own interest in, in Chopara's collectors, Luc is, is where the heat is. Yeah, but you're not just being, you wouldn't just be the CEO of Luc.

A (14:27)

Oh, I would have jewelry I would need to think about and the entire watch range.

B (14:31)

Well, that's, that's my point. Like, to me, like that's kind of that's kind of interesting from. From an ownership standpoint because of the diversification of the product line. Chopard. The way I became aware of Chopard just as a brand growing up was as a high jewelry brand.

A (14:45)

Well, you know, they started as a watchmaker that. That veered into jewelry, and now they're more known for jewelry to the average.

B (14:52)

But the high jewelry was like, what. What I kind of, you know, what came into my circle of knowledge.

A (14:57)

That's what they're still primarily known for.

B (14:59)

Yeah. And that stuff is. Is astonishingly beautiful. And then from that, you know, it was sort of like the meal Melia that got my attention.

A (15:06)

Oh, yeah.

B (15:07)

And then, of course, like, there's this whole. Yeah, but there's this whole other category too, of like, very popular, more produced in higher quantity pieces, like the Happy Diamonds and things like that. And what I find interesting about them as an independent is that they have a very large net with which to capture clients. Because if you have, you know, five, six, $7,000 to spend, you can get a meal Melia, you can get a Happy Diamonds. I think. I'm not totally sure about those price points, but in that general vicinity, you know. Now, of course, they have this. This line that straddles the main line and Luc, which is the Alpine Eagle, which has grown.

A (15:40)

Oh, yeah. It has a foot in both. Yeah.

B (15:42)

I mean, because there are some with Luc movements, there are some without. So that entire line is also speaks like a segment of the market which, which is. Which is more, I think, broad in its appeal than some of the more refined pieces that they offer through Luc, which is, of course, very targeted at this point, I would argue at independence. And don't forget, of course, that they also own Ferdinand Bertault. Yep. And Ferdinand Bertault is a absolutely incredible hout. Horology brand.

A (16:07)

Well, I don't know if that would be included in my purchase. You know, might be part of it, might not be.

B (16:11)

That would be negotiated, I guess. But my point is, like, you have. You have a very broad product roadmap and a very broad assortment of audiences that you can address. So, you know, and that's why I

A (16:23)

think it's a uniquely defensible business, because it's, again, this isn't a one watch brand. When you think about their watches, they have strong performers in every category. You know, the Mille Miglia is a great example of like a sporty chronograph. I love, by the way, that Bamford edition.

B (16:38)

I owned it. Yeah, I owned that.

A (16:39)

What an awesome watch. But there's Happy Diamonds, which plays into another growing segment of the market, which are these jewelry, watches, shaped watches, watches, things like that. Alpine Eagle is another great example. The Luc piece is beautiful Time only watches. Beautiful metier des art pieces like the, the. Those market tree dials that they launched last year. I mean, they're strong. You know, we talked in our last episode about one of the things that makes Jorn so strong as a business from a product standpoint is like all of their watches are, are desirable. They make great watches in, in all those different categories. And I think the same is. Is true of Chopard. It's like a unique business. They have a well diversified product portfolio and it's just like waiting to pop off.

B (17:25)

You're gonna need a lot of money to buy that.

A (17:27)

I'm gonna. Yeah, it's. Look, I mean, again, it's not for sale, but I do think it's a, it's a brand. This is a brand. I mean, when you think about like the MBNF sale, it's like, okay, this is a smart sale, you know, a smart, you know, move to make, to acquire it. Right? Because the, the brand has this long term extensibility. With Chopard, I think the smart, savvy business angle on this, I would. Because I like it and I think it's. It's cool. And from everything we discussed Luc to for number two. Wow, what watchmaking. But I think the savvy business angle on this one would be this is a brand that is in business that's incredibly diversified with compelling and amazing products. A very strong brand that can only get stronger. So I see this as a business that has a ton of potential going forward off of an incredibly strong foundation. And I guess I'd have to learn a thing or two about jewelry. But why? Why not? Seems like fun.

B (18:23)

I would love to watch you learn a thing or two about jewelry. I would love to watch you, like, try and sell someone some jewelry.

A (18:31)

Come on. Yeah. Why you gotta be. Why you gotta be like that? So you think that qualifies as an, as an indie. Indie pick?

B (18:39)

Yeah, absolutely.

A (18:39)

Okay, cool. So Snake style draft. Next category. I get the first pick this time. This is a micro brand.

B (18:45)

Now. Now we're into your wheelhouse here. We're.

A (18:48)

Yeah. Challenger brands. Under $5,000. There are a ton of. A ton of compelling options. If I were to play, you know, pick from the same playbook I just did, I would probably pick Christopher Ward. You know, that's sort of the show part of this category. I mean, I think it's A widely popular brand with a well diversified product catalog and impeach unimpeachable watchmaking bonafides that still has a ton of potential and growth. But my pick in this category is a brand that is near and dear to my heart. One of the micro brands that I've owned several watches from, and that's Monta and Manta Makes. Let's start with what I love about Manta. This is one where I think there's opportunity to open up the aperture a little bit. But at its core, what I love about Manta is talk about products that are unimpeachable. These guys make an excellent watch and the products are incredibly well made. The fit and finish on these products at the price point, everything here is under I think even $4,000 still. I don't even know what does an Ocean King cost these days.

B (19:56)

Probably I actually don't know right now.

A (19:59)

Regardless of what they cost, these guys make an incredibly well made, well built watch with you know, every spec you as an enthusiast would expect from a dive watch or a time only watch or a GMT.

B (20:14)

Wow. A Sky Quest is $2,435. That's, that's incredible. So the, the, and that's the GMC 2100.

A (20:22)

And then what's the king?

B (20:23)

The Ocean King is 2550. That's a, that's a great watch for 25.

A (20:28)

No, it's a lot of watch and you know, obviously people have complained. Monta has always been incredible from a value proposition standpoint in terms of offering you a really well made and a really lux watch at a very fair price. And in the last few years as watch prices have only gotten more and more expensive and to some absurd like this I think is even more of a compelling value now than it was 5, 6, 7, 10 years ago when they, when they launched. So this is coming from, you know, an incredibly strong foundation. I think they have a ton of opportunity to continue to move into other sport watch categories. Like for instance, they don't have a chronograph.

B (21:12)

Yeah, it's, I'm just looking through like their product line here.

A (21:15)

It's very tight, it's very clean, which is probably, you know, they run like a very smart and a very well structured business. But I think they have permission to expand the product category catalog a little bit and that's all. If I were to take over Manta, I would be doing it because I love it and I respect the product and I think it's an incredibly well made watch. The aesthetics of it appeal to me and I think it has the opportunity to move into additional adjacent categories in, in the, in the sports watch area. I mean you could do a cool loom dial diver, as I said, chronographs. There's, there's more, more to be done here. Experimenting with different, different case materials. Like how cool would a ceramic Manta be? And that would fit exactly within kind of the luxe tool watch vibe of this brand. So this is a brand where I think they can open up the aperture a little bit more, move into more categories and they still have the pretend the potential and the space to do that. And I think the demand would, would be there. So the world needs more of what Manta does and there, there's absolute potential to be able to continue to expand into other, other product catego.

B (22:24)

My personal experience with Manta, I think aligns with that. But, but you raise a really good point, which is one of the things that I think a lot of businesses generally struggle with is they have really, really great ideas. But the ex. But they suffer at execution. And this is really challenging, especially when you're, when you're not in the same country as your, as your supply chain and your production line. You know. And obviously Manta watches are made in Switzerland, as far as I know.

A (22:47)

Yep.

B (22:47)

And they are, they are.

A (22:50)

The business is run in the US in the US Designed in the US but they are proudly Swiss made.

B (22:55)

Exactly. And you know, the company is Midwestern and that's. They actually have figured out something I think a lot of other companies haven't, which is what gives them, I think the ability to have that acceleration opportunity which is their supply chain is very strong. The quality of their componentry is exceptional. So if you've ever held an Ocean King, for example, like the bezel action is wonderful. The bracelets are really well made. These are the same guys that were behind Everest Straps that founded the company. So there's a real understanding of a lot of these, you know, the requirement of tolerances for something to feel like the quality product that you want it to be. Which was my reaction to the price point being so competitive. I didn't realize they were still priced that way. So you know, if you say to, if you look at a company like that, you can say okay, to your point, the opportunity to open the aperture a little bit more, you know, have additional models, explore. The design language is not going to be hindered by a lack of industrial background or engineering capability because they've already built that muscle and there are so many micro Brands out there that offer incredible design, but you pick the watch up and you're like, there's some rotor rattle or like there's some element of this that just doesn't meet the premium expectation that I would have of a four figure watch. And they don't have that problem.

A (24:08)

Manta leaves absolutely nothing to be desired from a quality standpoint. Quite the opposite.

B (24:13)

Yeah, it's, it's a really, it's an interesting pick and the more I think about it, the more I could see like opportunity with that one too. So. So give those guys a call.

A (24:22)

Yeah. Well, hey, would you guys sell me,

B (24:25)

I got some monopoly money right here.

A (24:26)

Afford that. But yeah, that was an easy one for me also. Just from a place of love. It's a brand that I've owned a lot of watches from. We know the guys there, Mike and Justin, and they're wonderful people and they make a really great product that we respect and admire. So in my fantasy land, I would be proud to be a part of that. What's your pick?

B (24:48)

Oh boy, this was a tough one. But I, I think I, I would.

A (24:51)

It's spoiled for choice here.

B (24:52)

It really is. I'm, I'm gonna, I'm gonna make an offer to Jose over at Isotope. Yeah, I, I just, I love, first of all, I love him. For those of you who've never met the founder, is he going to be

A (25:06)

able to keep his job if you buy the business? You're going to keep him around?

B (25:10)

Well, he'll have a 90 day performance improvement plan. Okay, what is it exactly that you do here? No, but, but ironically, the answer to that is everything.

A (25:21)

Yeah.

B (25:21)

So Jose is Isotope. Isotope is Jose. But the reason why is that I think that when you have somebody who has proven not only are they a capable business owner, not only are they a capable creative, but they're able to put it all together into something that still feels somewhat cohesive. Well, not somewhat, still feels cohesive, still has a clear, you know, clear like general design language. But the diversity of ideas is astonishing. And what's interesting too, and the reason why I would want to, want to, you know, in this, in this draft, invest is that you can see the evolution of, of his ambition, the brand's ambition, I should say, and its ability over the course of the years. Right. So like when I look at Isotope, you know, I came to really know the watch, you know, from the sort of Hydriam, like their dive watch, which really cool, like big, chunky, but not overbearing, you know, diver. And then there's this like endless variation on that line, you know, that goes to all sorts of different places. You know, there's NASA versions, there's, you know, there's crazy divers, there's artistic collaborations, there's, you know, in cheek, you know,

A (26:39)

they do a cool Scottish watches.

B (26:40)

Yeah, they did one with Scottish watches. There was a Sushi. Very. I mean it's like all over the map in terms of like the, the opportunity for expression. The. No, the, the, the I will come back later. The, the return later sign, you know, like super, super cool. And then he'll drop something that was just mind blowingly creative, inventive and incredibly difficult. And that's the moonshot chronograph.

A (27:01)

Oh yeah, those are awesome.

B (27:02)

Yeah. And, and, and it's not just the moonshot chronograph, it's also the Avni jumping hour. So if you zoom out out really far on the brand, what's clear and where I see the opportunity is you have these very distinct product fan. Can you say very distinct or something? Just distinct. It's like, you can't say something's very, it can't be very unique because it's just unique.

A (27:24)

I don't know.

B (27:25)

It's the kind of stuff my grandma would like rag on me about. Be like, that's very unique. She'd be like, no, it's unique. It can't be extra unique. Anyway. Whatever.

A (27:31)

I never, I never, I never got that one. My mother was a school teacher, but I never heard that.

B (27:35)

Well, so grandma Eva lives on. It's, it's. You can't be very unique anyway. If you think about what's possible with, you know, the dive line, the, the Moonshot Chrono and the Avni. And you look at these as like families.

A (27:49)

Like, oh man, he's got a wall clock. He's got the return and exit wall clock now. Oh man. Yeah, I'm just going through the site

B (27:57)

here, but again, zooming out. These product families are very, very ownable. They are executions that are obviously from isotope from across a room.

A (28:07)

Yep.

B (28:08)

You know, and there's very few watches that are like that in the, in this category, you know, where from across the room I'm like, yep, that's a isotope, right.

A (28:17)

That mercury watch he did with Revolution.

B (28:20)

Yeah, that thing's cool. There's a lot of really cool watches that he's made. And I can't stress enough. Like, it's, it's really just him. So the, the amount like, so to me, looking at this as like, you know, if I in My imaginary, you know, watch VC fund. I would see that as, as a owner operator that has the op like that I would want a fund to accelerate. Yeah.

A (28:43)

And I think maybe I'll put some words in your mouth here, but like what some outside investment could do and like bringing you in as this owner operator where you'd have to run the business that would actually, it would free him up, Free him up to focus on, on design and, and, and the watchmaking side of, of the business. And this is just doing it all, as you say.

B (29:03)

Well, this was some feedback that you and I got from Nicholas Bowman Scargill many, many years ago. Remember where we hadn't hired anyone yet. You know, we were out to dinner and Nick based and I, And, And I didn't want to do it until we had like six months of salary for that person in the bank, et cetera, whatever. And Nick pointed out to us that the best time to hire is when you need the person, not when you feel like you're ready for the person. Yeah.

A (29:26)

He said if you wait until you're. If you wait until you're ready, it's too late.

B (29:30)

Exactly. And another way to interpret that is essentially bring, you know, if your business is moving, bringing someone in can help accelerate it by relieving pressure on you and allowing you to focus on the things that you're best at as opposed to, you know, And I empathize with this tremendously because for the beginning years of Collective, it was just you and me.

A (29:48)

We did everything.

B (29:51)

And in many cases, in my case, certainly like many things with a degree of mediocrity.

A (29:56)

Oh. For both of us. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

B (29:59)

Totally. So tons of things P and L that, like, I just was not good at.

A (30:02)

And I did. I. I do the P and L and.

B (30:05)

Yeah, well, there's a reason you do

A (30:06)

the P and L. Yeah, true, buddy. I've even had some blunders there.

B (30:11)

Yeah, well, you know, but my point is.

A (30:13)

But those are pleasant surprises.

B (30:15)

Totally.

A (30:16)

Hey, it's Gabe. Openwork is proudly ad free and requires no paid subscription. If you'd like to support the show, please take a moment to subscribe, rate and review on your podcast platform of choice. Please also check out and subscribe to Collective horology on on YouTube where you'll find hundreds of videos we've made on independent watchmaking. You can find our channel@collective horology.com YouTube and of course, you can always support the podcast by picking up a watch from over a dozen independent brands along with our latest merch@collective horology.com thanks for listening and for your support. Now back to the show.

B (30:53)

My point is, if I apply that logic to Isotope, I think it really would be, you know, match meat, meet gas. Like, there's so much potential there because the vision for the brand is so clearly articulated and the passion for it is so obviously there. And yeah, here's to Jose. That's a brand I would want to invest in with my fund.

A (31:15)

Yeah, I think a good analog for that. Yeah, exactly. A good analog for Isotope in that regard is Ming. Yeah, but the difference is, like, when Ming, the brand started, it would, they did have multiple people who were owner operators. The business. It wasn't just Ming Tian, you know, himself making stuff, going to every trade show or whatever. But over time, he's realized that he needs to let go of the operation of the business so that he can focus on the product development and design and, and enable the rest of the team to do their jobs. Yeah, and, and bring in people to do that. And that's allowed him to really accelerate and take the product development of to. I mean, you look at a Ming watch today versus what they were making nine years ago when they started.

B (32:04)

It's, the iteration is so clear.

A (32:07)

It's pretty remarkable. So, you know, imagine Isotope watches are already awesome from a product and a design standpoint. Imagine how much further that could, could accelerate. Pretty, pretty exciting, frankly.

B (32:19)

Yeah, for sure.

A (32:20)

All right, final category here. Mainstream luxury brand. You get the first pick. I'm curious to see what you think mainstream luxury brand is that I would

B (32:31)

want to be the CEO of.

A (32:33)

Yeah, right. You gotta, you gotta want your money on the table too. Yeah, they're fake money.

B (32:38)

This one, this one was actually real easy for me. I, I, I would love to own and, and operate Vacheron Constantin.

A (32:45)

Oh, that makes sense.

B (32:47)

Super easy for me. And you know, there's a, there's a lot of reasons. I mean, there's sentimental reasons for that. So, But I'll remove those because, you know, there's, that's important. There's no place for sentimentality in venture capital.

A (32:57)

That's not true. And this whole business, this whole in industry is bu. Sentimentality. It matters.

B (33:02)

Let's get Mar on the pod. Ask him about sentimentality.

A (33:06)

I no idea what that reference is to, but sure, fair enough.

B (33:10)

Okay.

A (33:10)

Underway. I don't really think I want to hear his opinion on that.

B (33:14)

Just right. Because of my setup. But okay. Taking a step back from a purely business standpoint, there's a lot of reasons why I would want to do this. I mean, first of all, was it

A (33:23)

only because AP was taken off the table?

B (33:26)

Oh, God.

A (33:26)

Would you have picked Vacheron regardless? It sounds like you would have.

B (33:29)

No, someone would need to pay me to run apart.

A (33:31)

Okay?

B (33:32)

But for me to put my money on the table, it would be Vacheron. And there's a couple of reasons there. One, I have always felt that there has been, and I mean this in the highest compliment, a real kind of like quiet challenge to the more established Patek Philippe line of, you know, more dress oriented watches out there that has come from Vacheron. Like Vacheron to me has always had a much more elegant, and this is a personal taste thing, but a more elegant, more refined, more gentlemanly energy to it than some of its competitors have. And that's always been true too. On the innovation side, I mean, the innovations from Ultra Thin Movements, for example, within Vacheron is well known, well established, and many of those calibers, I mean, heck, I own one, I own two. I own one that my grandfather, right when I got married, I wore that watch. And it's an ultra thin vacheron caliber from 1960s. I bought one, as I've mentioned on the pot a couple times from the Davidovs a few months ago. Another absolutely beautiful Geneva sealed ultra thin caliber. And these watches, when you put them on, they have this, they feel they're like imbued with this extraordinary elegance that makes them so wonderful on the wrist. And then when you look at the modern line and where, what. And, and in this case, I, I would say hat tip to Richemont, because I think of all of the brands that Richemont owns, it's one of the best managed ones certainly of the last five years. I mean, the overall effort and energy that they've put into revitalizing the brand, you know, from moving it from what, what might. What could have felt a little bit as like dusty luxury into something that feels vibrant but without giving into kitsch. This is the interesting thing about them. Like, if you look at the way that they've embraced sort of like the arts, if you will, you know, now, or that they've embraced just the aesthetic of, you know, their stores evolving into a place that feels very high luxury, but also very bright and airy and like, you know, in. Almost feels like there's art installation, like in New York, like some of those, like you know, just the overall design of it feels almost like there's installations there. Like it's, it feels like a architecturally beautiful space that you want to inhabit. And then the watches sort of fit into them. So the experience of being there feels like an amazing articulation of the brand. And without digressing, like, there's no limited editions with like, you know, artist design dials and things like that. Like, the brand is the brand, but they've rather. I should say the product is the product, but the brand has evolved around it. And I find that to be.

A (36:06)

That's a good way of putting it.

B (36:07)

I find that to be so cool. And then, you know, they're also a brand that has managed to have a great and successful luxury sports watch line that has not eclipsed the product. You know, like, I love Vacheron. If I were to have. If I had $100,000 to spend on a watch, I don't think the over, like the overseas. Like, there are some overseas I think are cool. But as a collector, there's so many other options from Vacheron in those price ranges that are as compelling, if not more so than what you can get from the overseas line. And that, to me, signals product health in a way that is incredibly appealing from a business owner standpoint. Because, you know, like, the worst thing that you'd want is to buy a brand where you're selling people, you know, traditionals to get them, they're overseas. I'm not saying that that doesn't happen. Like, I'm sure it does, but like,

A (36:57)

as far as I'm concerned, a time when it did, sure.

B (37:00)

But like, as far as I'm concerned, like, as a collector and I think a lot of other people, like, they see a lot of incredible stuff in the traditional line or they may not

A (37:06)

even be interested in the overseas at all.

B (37:08)

Anyway, that's my point. And I'm not even getting into like, the high comps and things of that nature, you know. And it's interesting too, because you would say, like, well, the 2 to 2 might, you know, like the steel 222. Is that the watch you want? And I mean, I've been lucky enough to. We have some clients that own them. I've been lucky enough to get a steel 222 on my wrist watch is awesome. But again, If I had 40 or $50,000, whatever that watch costs to buy a Vacheron, that's not what you. No, I would probably be buying a complete calendar like those, you know, like the partially skeletonized complete calendar, because that watch speaks to me and isn't necessarily where the heat is, so to speak speak. But it's an awesome watch. So If I was going to be stepping into a leadership role there. I see a brand that's in great health, multiple product lines with diversity and clear point of view that offer, I think, a lot of compelling opportunity for a client. So you're not constantly funneling people into one product line or another. I see a retail network of owned and operated boutiques that look like they could be epicenters and hubs for community. I know from, again, just from our clients who are Vacheron clients. They are fiercely passionate about the brand. Yeah, like people who love Vacheron.

A (38:21)

It's kind of shocking, you know, this is a publicly traded company. It's part of a giant, multi billion dollar multinational luxury conglomerate. And the people we know who are Vacheron collectors are ardent fans of the brand and the people at the brand.

B (38:37)

Yes. And I, and I do know from, again, from those same clients that they invest in the people who invest in them. And I don't just mean that from an allocation standpoint, I mean just in general, they spend time with the people

A (38:49)

who show people they care about relationships.

B (38:51)

They do. And then finally their restoration work on their historic pieces is exceptional, which creates an other revenue line, which I think is so cool, which, you know, other, other brands are doing. But Vacheron is doing really well where they have an entire community of people who, who will take in and lovingly restore, like with great care and detail, historic Vacheron references, which, not only does it help preserve the heritage of the brand. And yes, by the way, I know Patek does this too. I know, you know, Rolex to a very little degree does this too, with certain references. But Vacheron does it really, really, really well. Like, I've seen some pieces that they've restored where they've kept the, you know, kept the integrity of the watch. They didn't make it look new, you know, but they restored it to its former glory. And that to me is just magnificent because not only does it create and maintain the heritage of the brand, it creates an entirely new revenue stream where you have a client that may own 20 Vacherons, be a huge Vacheron collector. And there is a way to continually find revenue with them through restoration.

A (39:57)

Offer them something truly rare and special.

B (39:59)

Well, yeah, well, here's the thing. They don't even have to sell them the watch, right? That's a watch you could buy at auction and it goes to them for restoration, for example, if that's a thing you'd want to do. And it's just an incredible service and revenue opportunity. That demonstrates to me that they actually have a real understanding of customer life cycle and the way that people collect. So from a business standpoint, you have incredible product lines that don't cannibalize each other. You have an amazing retail network that, you know, as described, has all the features that we like. You have a restoration function that allows you to pay attention to where someone is in a customer life cycle and still find ways to have both a artistic and commercial relationship with them. And you're doing this at a scale, you know, it's 20, 30,000 watches at most a year. You're doing this at a scale that's manageable for you to still have that. And you're doing without, you know, trying to go to 50, 60, 70,000, 80,000 watches, you know, without the ability to maintain, build and support the relationship. So much respect to Vacheron.

A (40:54)

Thank you for your love letter to Vacheron, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. What would you do differently? I mean, you want to just own this thing and, you know, keep it hermetically sealed and not change anything? Or is there some potential see there for, you know, making an ownership, taking an ownership stake? What would you do differently?

B (41:14)

I think that there is a massive opportunity to erode Patek Philippe from Vacheron. Massive. And there's sort of two angles for that to work, one of which is, is it would be a symptom, so to speak, of like the, the, the effective approach, which would be you would see the secondary market increase because, I mean, let's be honest, a lot of things that I think Patek collectors think about as a secondary value of their watches.

A (41:35)

Yeah.

B (41:35)

And I say that because that's what I hear when, when I'm dealing with someone on a trade or evaluation. So that, that's my, that's my learned experience as a dealer.

A (41:42)

Yep.

B (41:43)

And I think if, if you can do that, that, that is a, you know, that will be the natural consequence of the first point, which is to put blinders on and be removed from the, be removed from the structure of a corporate environment where you, you can't pretend that JLC and Lange are there or aren't there. Right. If you purge that out, then you actually can, you can edge your way into some of the things that those other brands are required to cover on, like the corporate splat mat.

A (42:17)

So you're, you're spinning this out from Richemont and liberating the, the brand from the shackles of being managed relative to everything else. That's Sitting around it in the.

B (42:26)

Yeah, I have no interest in working for a gigantic corporation again, but.

A (42:30)

So that's part of the opportunity.

B (42:31)

I do. But I think that the reason why is that Vacheron, I think, has already demonstrated their ability to play in several different product categories. And if they felt that the product, if they had the ability and the permission structure to push it even further into those categories without worrying that they were cannibalizing a Longa sale or a JLC sale or what have you, I think that, I think the potential for growth is astronomical because I do think that they'd be able to offer something to people who are Patek collectors that they don't currently get. I mean, Patek Philippe, and we've talked about this before, like the. Excluding the grand comps, which are masterpieces, the majority of the product line is essentially a perfectly nice, you know, machine. I don't want to say machine made watch, but like line made watch. It is an industrially made watch.

A (43:23)

That's the thesis here, that the Vacheron stuff that competes against it is better made, better value.

B (43:28)

Again, I want to be very careful about how I say this because it's not a categorically accurate statement.

A (43:33)

It's your opinion.

B (43:34)

But I do think that the watch, like the actual watchmaking at, on the majority of watches, not just the high end, exceed what you get from Patek.

A (43:44)

Got it. Yeah. This is a little bit of my Chopard thesis as well.

B (43:47)

Yes. Now I do think, I do think that Lange offers obscenely high end watchmaking and that there is a legitimate equal throw threat to Patek from Lange, if we're talking about a pure watchmaking standpoint. But Lange, as much as I as a collector love the brand, I don't think that I would be the right. Like, I can't imagine running that brand because I don't think that they want to change who they are ever. Like they are who they are and I would be like. So for me, not me, but, but Vacheron I think is willing to adapt and change and that. And I think with that adapt, with their adaptability and removed from the group, they could elbow out the competition. They could do a better job in some cases on some watches in the competition, they could erode some of Patek's success and in doing so increase their secondary market value.

A (44:34)

Yeah, I would, you know, if I were just thinking about who do I think the bigger Patek killer is between say, Lange and Vacheron, I'd go with Vacheron for a number of reasons. I think the most important one is brand and equity. Lange just doesn't have the equity that Vacheron does. I mean Vacheron's been around for longer and just has such an impressive back catalog and is a, you know, brand that people and their families have known for decades. There are heirlooms that get passed down. And it's Swiss.

B (45:04)

Yeah.

A (45:05)

And explaining the whole German watchmaking thing to people and you know, along in Zona name and all that, it's. It's a little complicated. Whereas something like a Patek Philippe of Asheron, even Chopard Hard because it's Swiss, because it's a little bit more mainstream. It's easier to metabolize.

B (45:22)

You're talking about this purely from a messaging standpoint.

A (45:25)

Purely from. I'm trying to build a global luxury brand. Yeah, Lange. And this is taking all the watchmaking out of it. Lange is just very inside.

B (45:33)

Well, another way. And I'll give you one final example of why I think there's potential there if it was given the juice to do it. Look, just compare the 5811 to the modern base model. I guess, to be fair. Fair the, the 5811 compared to like the gold overseas base model. Because that would be I guess essentially a one to one comparison.

A (45:53)

5811 is what, a nautilus of some sort?

B (45:55)

Yeah, it's. It's the modern. It's the modern version of. Of the time only nautilus, but is only available in gold. And sure, like there were some changes from the 5711. Right. I mean you have bracelet adjustment, you know, quick adjust it hacks.

A (46:11)

Yes, that's the big news.

B (46:12)

Well, I mean in fairness, the last generations of the 5711 did too, but whatever. But that caliber has, you know, has been around for quite some time and not, you know, the updates to it notwithstanding. But really the 5811 is essentially the 5711 in gold with a couple of adjustments. But it's largely a 5711. The modern overseas has gone through so many iterations and changes over the last 25 years. So many.

A (46:39)

Yeah. It feels like a much more modern watch.

B (46:41)

It is a much more modern watch. And I think that that. And it's not cutting any corners. I mean the movement in there is astonishingly beautiful. Finishing of those watches is exceptional. So what you have is a much more modern, extremely elegant sports watch from a hot horology brand that I think offers a lot more if you're willing to look for it. And the only. But you still are fighting the, you know, you're still climbing the mountain against the Patek Philippe brand because that, that little drop of ink on the dial that says Patek Philippe is, is really what makes the Nautilus.

A (47:13)

It's worth something.

B (47:14)

Exactly. And Vacheron, you know, in order to get that Maltese Cross to the same level, you know, there's brand work to be done, but it's not product work. And I think that, that's interesting to me because I do think that there are, that there are some soft underbelly spots to target with Patek that, that longa or excuse me, that Vacheron could effectively do if they had the wherewithal, the, the financing and the freedom to do it.

A (47:39)

Got it. So what was your mainstream luxury brand again?

B (47:42)

A Patek. So.

A (47:44)

I'm kidding. All right, so this, this is the last one. I was going to do IWC as my main, obviously. But no, I'm going to. You picked Vacheron. So I'm going to go outside of the, outside of the Richemont company and I'm going to take a little bit of a zag here. I'm going to pick Grand Seiko.

B (48:01)

And didn't you say like you've sold every Grand Seiko you ever had?

A (48:04)

I have. That's why, that's why I'm going to get my hands on this thing. So I think, as I said, like, I think for everyone, whether aesthetically or even product wise, purely, like Grand Seiko is your thing. I think it's intellectually something that all watch enthusiasts really admire. I know I certainly do. And Grand Seiko it for me is the prototypical example. Although I have owned some of their watches. My wife owns a Grand Seiko which she loves. It's her favorite watch. One of those awesome time only, high accuracy, 9F quartz watches. Beautiful watch really with the dial is, is just so well finished. In any event, it's the poster child for me of a brand who I intellectually love and admire but whose products just aren't for me. And that is exactly why I would love to get my hands on it. I think that it has really so many key ingredients to continue to be successful. I mean, they've had a meteoric rise and I still think there's room to grow.

B (49:03)

Do you, you, would you buy Seiko or are you buying just Grand Seiko?

A (49:08)

Look, this is, this is a watch brand draft. No, but like I said, we don't know if Ferdinand Bertud is even included in the chopar deal. This is just, I'm just buying grand.

B (49:18)

So you'd sweeten the pot for Seiko if they, if, if Seiko and Presage and all the other sub brands would come in?

A (49:23)

I, I, yeah, I'm not, I haven't even thought about that. This is just the Grand Seiko is the brand I'm drafting here. This isn't a watch business draft, it's a brand draft. So, yeah, next we'll have to do a holding company. Dr. You're wondering what the ne. You were wondering what the next open work draft would be. It's the holding company.

B (49:41)

I'll be on vacation for that one.

A (49:43)

Stay tuned. Yeah, we could do some interesting ones like an executive draft. You know, there could be that, there could be some really interesting.

B (49:50)

Okay, don't weasel out of this. Keep going with.

A (49:52)

So no, I wouldn't buy, wouldn't buy all of Seiko. This is a grand Seiko deal. Not that I don't love Seiko. I do, but I think that there for me, it's like I'd love to get my hands on this brand because there's just a few things I tune up and fix. And man, would this be a brand for me because I think the product is excellent. I think the brand is there. It's remarkable to me they've come as far as they have and gone really now as mainstream as they had with Seiko in the name, they've managed to turn it from a liability or, you know, something that a lot of us thought would be a liability to a strength. Regardless. What would I do? Well, first, some basic things we need to work on the bracelets here, people. We need some, we need some micro adjust. We can start, we can start with that. And then I think, you know, from a product standpoint, I would really just be working on, working on aesthetics. Case size and dimensions and ergonomics is another thing. So easy to knock. The bracelets, the cases generally have been criticized and I feel this really, outside of the 9F stuff, they're just too thick, too tall. So I think proportions need to be worked on and I think aesthetics should need to be worked on a little bit. Sometimes the Grand Seiko stuff just feels a little bit too pressured for what it is. For me at least. I really like sports watches and sporty watches. That's also where the heart of the watch markets is and watch market is. And so some of the Grand Seiko stuff just feels a bit too dressy to fundamentally address the core of the market and go after rolex and Tudor and Omega and Breitling. And I think the brand needs some design changes and some finishing changes to be able to more squarely go after those brands and, and compete better in the sports watch position. So I'd be looking at doing more, focusing more on, on tool watches. And even when they do tool watches, like they've done all those kind of like Explorer 2 kind of themed GMT watches. They've got some great 9F ones, they've done spring drive GMTs, but they're just a bit too fussy. It's like they're over finished.

B (52:00)

The, the thing is that would make me nervous about buying Grand Seiko is I always sort of wonder why they have gotten into such an intense iterative mode where they have more SKUs than I can.

A (52:19)

So many variations on a theme.

B (52:20)

Yeah. And I wonder, do you think that that from a brand standpoint does that come from a place of power with them? Because for me I'm always just kind of like, like when you look at the product families. Right. The product families are well defined. The different cases and things.

A (52:36)

Yeah. There's sport and heritage and.

B (52:38)

Well, yeah. And there's very specific case, you know, case dimensions, etc, you know, when you look at like the, when you look at like the, the white birch and, and that sort of like high end.

A (52:47)

The Evo cases. Exactly. More traditional. Is it the GS?

B (52:51)

There's lots of.

A (52:52)

Yeah.

B (52:52)

The 40, 44 GS. Yeah. It's not a grand sequel guy. So don't, don't, don't come at me about these beautiful. But there are definitely like, you know, defined families there and then there's like 60 different references in many of these different families.

A (53:05)

Yeah. I think they're just too parochial about like what makes a Grand Seiko a Grand Seiko and these design codes and rules that everything ends up looking like a dressy sports watch.

B (53:13)

Well, yeah, good point. But I guess this is my, this is my question for you about it though. If you were going to like from a brand standpoint, do you think that level of diversity helps the brand or hurts the brand? And if you were going to be

A (53:26)

running it, I think it hurts the brand. I think they need. Need. I think they need a level of diversity.

B (53:31)

Sure.

A (53:31)

But I think what they end up having now is they have a diversity, but it's pretty narrow in terms of. It's a lot of variations on a theme.

B (53:39)

Yeah.

A (53:40)

Versus saying like, okay guys, you have the dressy sports watch thing nailed. Great. Well, well done there. Cool. Let's look, let's Let, let's focus a little bit on opening up the aperture here. What do we need? It's actually a bit like the manta thing to some extent. It's a, like, where are the chronographs, where are the tool watches? Where are the dress watches? I now I know they have dress watches and chronographs. Yes. But a very, very limited number of chronographs. And I know they have some really cool like GMT chronographs and all this tentagraph and the tentagraph. Like, but like, where's the straight up chronograph? You know what I mean? So I think my point here is like, they're, they're so parochial about the design that everything ends up looking like this dress sports watch.

B (54:29)

Yeah.

A (54:29)

And I think they could say like, okay, we've done that. Let's, let's pare that down, you know, those products down and focus those products on what really makes sense and what really sells. Then let's look at what we really need for a tool watch and let's not be so like parochial about like, well, it has to be a Grand Seiko tool watch and meet all these different. It's like, let's guys lighten up a lot. Little bit. Come on, relax. And I think they need some permission to move into other categories and just get out of this, this very narrow corner they painted themselves into of dressy sports watches.

B (55:08)

Yeah.

A (55:09)

And I think they could do it and I think they'd be rewarded for it. I think there'd be a market for it. And you know, they, if they work on their ergonomics a little bit and they put some micro adjust in the bracelets, then I think they're really cooking with gas.

B (55:21)

Yeah. The other thing about Grand Seiko that I always keep going in circles around or circles in my head is the separation of Grand Seiko from Seiko and then, but still keep, but still keeping Grand Seiko on the marquee. And I struggle with that and have done for a long time because if, if the premise of separating Grand Seiko from Seiko was about making sure they could elevate the brand so it didn't carry some of the baggage that some people may have around, you know, like a Seiko 5 costing a couple hundred bucks and this watch costing 10 to 20 times that, but then you keep Seiko in the name anyway way. It's just this, it feels, you know, it's like, it's not grand Toyota, it's Lexus. You know what I Mean, even though if you think about it, it really is a grand Toyota, like don't forget

A (56:05)

the good people at Acura.

B (56:07)

This is my point though.

A (56:08)

Like there's a reason, I wonder if anyone will get that reference. Acura. But yeah, some people call it Acura.

B (56:14)

Okay.

A (56:14)

And then there's, there's good old Infinity, don't forget. Who could forget Infiniti, Nissan.

B (56:19)

Oh, that's right. But my point is, is there's a reason that it is Lexus, not Toyota. And I just struggle with that from a brand standpoint because I'm like if you wanted to separate it out, then you should have separated it out.

A (56:32)

Yeah, you know, I, I, I generally used to have that same view of things, but they've managed to move past it.

B (56:37)

So you think they've, you think that as a brand they've managed to make Grand Seiko not feel related to its former or its current parent company.

A (56:46)

I think it's, it's related, but it's become a shorthand in a positive way. So two, two things. One is Seiko itself has really evolved from what it was even 10 years ago. I mean one of the great refrains now from so many enthusiasts is like, oh my gosh, I can't believe how expensive Seiko watches are. You know, like an ISO certified Seiko dive watch that's damn near a thousand dollars for something like that. Now maybe except accepting some SRP turtles and something like that. But you know, like the basic 62 mod kind of modern reinterpretation dive watches are over a thousand dollars. That's kind of well over. It's just the dive watch that you know, that they, they make, that's kind of their, the, you know, their, the protagonist, the poster child for their dive watch family is that, is that watch like that would have been unimaginable to have your kind of icon product in that category be over a thousand dollars ten, even ten years ago. So Seiko, I think it's itself has risen in quality and prestige. They've done a lot with the Seiko brand to clean up the Seiko market and elevate Seiko overall and take it out of like this world of like being perceived as like a drugstore and department store brand. And they, a lot has happened positively with Seiko and as a result I think that helps the grand Seiko thing. It's like, oh well, this is the even better version of, of Seiko. And then I think they've somehow managed, I'm not sure how it wouldn't have been the Advice I would have given them. If I were a consultant, I would have done the same thing you did. I would have gone to the board and I would said Toyota and Lexus, Nissan and Infiniti. That's probably not what I wanted to say. Why are the Infinity drivers always the worst? Just the worst?

B (58:31)

Are they.

A (58:31)

When someone's like acting the fool on the highway, it's an Infinity that checks out.

B (58:37)

It's usually it's just you.

A (58:38)

That brand won't be around much longer, which is probably why I wouldn't, wouldn't use in the presentation. But I would have said the same thing. You know, Volkswagen and Audi, whatever it might be, they've managed to somehow really elevate Grand Seiko and put it into luxury circles. And they've been. They committed to doing that. They stuck with it and it's worked. I think Grand Seiko does have a level of prestige now that it didn't have 10 years ago. So they deserve some credit there. Not the advice I would have given, but they've managed to stick the leak landing, I think. And that would. And that if I took over the brand. If you asked me 10 years ago, if you're going to take over the Grand Seiko brand, what would you do differently? I would have started there. I'd say then you got to change the name of the brand. That's it. Like, then we can't do anything until we do that first. Turns out I was wrong about that take. If I were to take over the brand today, I would say it's Grand Seiko. That's awesome. The brand works. Let's go. What we really need to do is work on expanding our product portfolio here and tuning up the product. Product. Because this is a brand that people, you know, root for and want to see succeed. I know I do.

B (59:45)

Godspeed.

A (59:47)

You've owned plenty of Grand Seiko.

B (59:49)

Oh, totally.

A (59:50)

Respect for the brand.

B (59:51)

I. I have. I got nothing but love for the brand.

A (59:53)

It's been a while since you've owned a Grand Seiko though, hasn't it? Years.

B (59:58)

Maybe five years.

A (59:59)

Wow. What was the last Grand Seiko you owned?

B (60:02)

The modern variant of the Snowflake. It's like the, the something or other 211 or whatever references.

A (60:08)

But the Titanium. Yeah, yeah. Still just kill. Oh yeah. Awesome watch. But there you go. Dressy tool watch. They do that well. Let's expand 100%. All right. The first ever open work watch brand draft. Some amazing picks in here. Asher, you picked for your independent brand MB&F. I picked Chopard. For micro brands, I picked Manta, you picked Isotope. And of course, for mainstream luxury brands, you picked Vacheron, and I picked Grand Seiko. There are clearly some themes in there, but maybe that's, that's for another time. Good pick, good discussion. Should we leave it there?

B (60:43)

Let's do it.

A (60:44)

All right. Well, thanks so much for listening. Openwork is, of course, a production of Collective Horology. You can find us online@collective horology.com unfortunately, you can't find any of today's brands there, but you can find over a dozen independent brands.

B (60:59)

You'll find them in the mergers and Acquisition section.

A (61:02)

Oh, yes, we'll have to add that to the site navigation. And of course, please get in touch with your question questions, your feedback, your suggestions. We love that stuff. And to do that, just email podcastollectiveherology.com.

B (61:20)

Yeah.