← The Real Time Show
The Real Time Show
Has "Taste" Abandoned Watchmaking? Are More Gatekeepers The Answer — Audicle Analysis
01:01:33
Loading summary
Transcript90 lines
- [00:06]
A
I've written and spoken several times now about how the watch industry is at its own peril, leaving core customers behind in pursuit of arbitrarily higher and higher pricing at their core. My beliefs are what you might call populist.
- [00:18]
B
Ish.
- [00:19]
A
Maybe that's populish. I don't know. Regardless, would Karl Marx have put watches on a list of essentials for the proletariat? No. But if someone is to spend their life working hard in a capitalist system, forced to trade their bodies and time for survival, they should be able to reward themselves for surviving with the purchase of a capitalism trophy. Watches serve that purpose well, and that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, because for decades they have been marketed exactly that way. However, increasingly even that goalpost is being moved. Because why care about the person who is scraping and saving to buy a watch in a few years time when you can jack up prices immediately and still get crypto bros to line up? There's an interesting subtext to this though, because actually, these price increases and the demand they imply, even if it is only implied rather than real at the moment, are actually a symptom of a watch market that has never been more democratized or more populist, to use that term again. Indeed, as social media and blogs emerged in the late 2000s, more people than ever before had more access to more information than ever before. Demand was strongly boosted and then truly unleashed during the pandemic in a way that is now subsiding, certainly, but still remains historically high. Put simply, watches are becoming less enjoyable and more inaccessible precisely because the information about them has become too accessible. This is a dynamic you'll no doubt recognize in numerous industries, notably tourism, where throngs of people encouraged by Instagram and TikTok reels and cheap airfare descend on locations in the hundreds of thousands. It's now easier than ever to find places to go and to get to those places, sure, but how fun is it once you arrive? I've thought about these ideas before, but they never quite gelled until a recent Thought piece arrived in my inbox. Eugene Rabkin is a fashion writer who also frequently shares his thoughts on social issues. You might roll your eyes because after all, what fashion journalist doesn't want to sound deep commenting on whatever the latest political news is? But as someone who moved from an ex Soviet bloc country in his youth, who educates himself constantly and who pulls no punches with his opinions, his writing is thoughtful and provocative. And it was one of these recent columns one of his recent columns, in fact, that inspired me to propose the following Very unpopulist We need to bring back gatekeeping to the watch industry. In his article titled simply the Case for Gatekeeping, Rapkin builds his argument on several points, which I'll enumerate here and build on as they relate to watches. First, Eugene Rapkin asserts that up until relatively recently, gatekeeping served as a form of cultural preservation. In the past, subcultures required participation, learning and effort. Gatekeeping social, not economic, and we'll get to that momentarily filtered out those without genuine interest and helped preserve meaning as well as, and this is crucial, encouraged people to discover meaning in what they consumed. Today this filtering is seen as elitist or exclusionary, and more practically, why would you hold back when you were watching blog and you can make ad money putting together endless lists of, for instance, top watches to buy under 5, 10 or $20,000? The second point stemming from the erosion of the first is that mass culture flattens meaning. Previously rich cultural experiences. So Rabkin uses the examples of streetwear and tourism in Kyoto are being stripped of depth due to mass adoption driven by social media and cheap access. What once required effort and passion is now a passive, commodified spectacle. And what you do is more about the doing because everyone else is doing the same, rather than the experiencing that comes from the act itself. Isn't this what is happening in watches as well? Patek Philippe, to name just one highly capable heritage brand among so many others, is objectively evidence that humans can fuse art and science to make beautiful things that transcend life lifetimes. They're just watches, sure, but I really do mean it when I say that they are a testament to the good stuff humans are capable of. And you have to hang onto those examples tightly to keep all the awful stuff we do as well from becoming all consuming. But when you take a well known Patek Philippe watch, change the dial color to a certain shade of blue and make less than 200 of them, it's then no more than a way for a small group of people to convince themselves that as confidently as they can. And more on that later too, that I am so awesome. Put another way, whereas one would deliberately research and make a choice if they wanted to experience the melding of art and science in their own way, in the case of that particular paddock, the choice was already made for the buyers because that's what all their friends were doing too. The third point flows naturally from the first two Democratization has gone too far. Democratization has become entitlement. Everyone believes they're owed Access to everything, regardless of effort, context or respect. This leads to cultural erosion, not individual empowerment. For luxury watches and the luxury sector generally, democratization is antithetical to the business model. So what do they do in response? Well, they come in strong with the price increases. Which leads to Rapkin's fourth point. Gatekeeping is already happening via money. In a world obsessed with access, we already have gatekeeping, but it's financial. And here Rapkin uses the examples that I'm sure you're all familiar with.
- [05:54]
C
Private clubs, exclusive restaurants, expensive concert tickets,
- [05:58]
A
that type of thing. Rapkin argues instead for cultural gatekeeping driven by values, curiosity and respect, not wealth. By moving gatekeeping much farther back from the point of purchase as it used to be, I'll note we can bring some form of meaning back to consumption. I do personally believe that all forms of consumption are unethical under capitalism, because at some point, somewhere in the value chain, someone is being taken advantage of. But I'm practical, I'm here, I have to eat, and my hobbies aren't free. So the way to mitigate any negative impact of consumption is to understand what, how, and how much I'm consuming. And we can encourage rather than force this thinking, even in a totally discretionary spend category such as luxury watches. With the gatekeeping that Rapkin cites, what would happen if we started casting just a hint of disapproval at the people proudly showing off their 10 or 20 watch Rolex collections? To that end, Rapkin believes that we need to bring back social friction. Rapkin urges readers to gatekeep intentionally, making a point which sounds counterintuitive, but in fact makes sense because this is how things have always been done until recently to protect culture by making access contingent on appreciation and understanding. With watches, this genie is out of
- [07:20]
C
the bottom because blogs and TikTok and
- [07:22]
A
Instagram accounts aren't going anywhere. However, there are likely dormant brands or models that have been untouched. If you find yourself in a position to find out about these, do you necessarily have to share them with everyone? History has shown time and again that sure, someone may get a deal by buying a currently undervalued watch and treasure it forever. More than likely, though, they'll just be crass and try to flip it or buy all these watches up and corner the market, or something like that. You know where I'm going with this? Because gatekeeping information is such a limited possibility nowadays, the social friction I want to discuss has to do more with taste and approval.
- [07:59]
C
It is absolutely wild to me, wild
- [08:02]
A
that the people who can afford to nonchalantly buy a Royal Oak need people's approval. But the more I hear about the very rich in the social circles, the more I'm convinced many of them have skin like wet tissue paper. Why do people post enormously lavish watch collections online or flex that royal oak? It's for approval. Strangers on the Internet apparently go a long way to shaping tastes and stroking egos. Because strangers on the Internet, after all, were the ones pushing Daytonas to six times their MSRP not that long ago. I sort of get it. At the end of the day, we're all human. We want to be reassured we're doing okay, and we'll take that reassurance wherever we can get it. But we have to stop encouraging this cycle. Not because it means everyone might get their dream watch at a discount, rather because right now the watch industry is fueling some awful people's awful behaviors in a way that makes me, and no doubt others, feel gross about participating in this hobby. Let me ask you this. When everyone is posting a Royal oak of some kind, are they really tastemakers? Is that how they see themselves? Do they really have a taste that signals a worldview or some sense of discernment that they themselves have taken the time and effort to form? Or are they just followers buying the 0.1% equivalent of a Labubu or a Stanley Cup? To be a tastemaker is to be admired as a leader and someone with a point of view. It's why a swatch worn by a rock star looks 50 times cooler than a royal oak worn by some NPC banker in a sleeveless vest. The former made a deliberate choice they liked, truly liked for any number of reasons. The latter just did it because, well, isn't that what everyone else in the office is doing? Supposedly those with money to burn are the rugged ones, leaders who, by forging their own path and ignoring the naysayers, made their fortunes thanks to the gift of their unique intuitions. Really? Really? Then why does every external choice they make, watches included, generally seem so conventional? I love this quote from Rabkin's article. Quote In 2000, the essayist David Sedaris wrote witheringly of an uncouth, mannerless Midwesterner who flip flopped her way to the Plaza Hotel in New York for an afternoon tea spent in the comfort of her sweatpants. He was sure she'd not get past the front door. He was wrong. End quote. This very US thinking that intellect and achievement and decorum are all both a given and or unnecessary when one has money has spread globally. And frankly, it's just not true. You can buy an aesthetic, it's easy, have enough money and you can hire the best interior designers to buy you the most well known design icons and it'll look like you knew what you were doing. You may even convince yourself that the end result is the product of your ideas, of your taste. Only you didn't, and it's not. Not all consumption implies taste, and if I'm picking on the Royal Oak, it's because truthfully, and let's be honest here, that is not a tasteful watch. It's a very nicely made watch. It's an icon of design, but it's not tasteful. As an aside, maybe it never was because its stratospheric price in the early 70s when it launched was a key part of its early marketing. If ever the Royal Oak was considered tasteful, those days are long gone, and I think we need to start saying that openly about this watch and several other pier watches. So let's celebrate the person daily driving an an Silberstein. Let's talk more about the person who imbues their Tudor black Bay with meaning by wearing it for every occasion and can then enjoy spending money on other hobbies, totally secure in the thought that this watch is more than strong enough to last their lifetime and certainly that of anyone they choose to pass it down to. Let's reserve the terms taste, tastemaker, trendsetter, and the like for unique individuals who have truly earned those titles by doing the work of educating themselves, by being brave enough to try new things and then daring to step out on a limb in some way. If the search for approval from strangers on the Internet can drive prices through the roof, maybe, just maybe, they can help bring a little sanity and a lot more taste back to the watch world.
- [12:24]
B
Welcome back to the studio, Watch fans. That was a very interesting romp through the mind of our resident provocateur. He was joining me and Alon in the studio to discuss his words. Now. It's an interesting one, I must say. I had to listen to it several times before I came away with an opinion, and my opinion is that David made quite a good point, but maybe we'll start with a counter to that. Alon, how did you find this article?
- [12:48]
D
I also had to listen a few times because I didn't know what direction David was steering it. He made actually a lot of bold statements. So working my way back from the end, maybe through all the points is if the central provoking hypothesis or statement it is not even a hypothesis is that brands should the calm down with pricing? If that's a one of the statements and the main statement of the article, I agree. Brands calm the down. Yes, David is right, calm down. But there's way more to unpack here. I'm just gonna shoot all directions because that's how I experience the article. My emotions and thoughts went in 360 directions. First and foremost, my name Alon means royal oak. So King David used to write poems under an Alon oak tree in Jerusalem. Although Adamar Piquet is referring to the British Royal Oaks. So when the royal oak came out in 72, designed by Gerald Genta, Adam RPK was bold enough to make this step where watches were gold, even sports watches, watches with precious metal bracelets, and to go all steel and break the mold. I don't think that Adam RPK then wanted to have natural selection or curation back then, whereas you've positioned it, David, as an utter flex watch. I think that Adam Piguet wanted to be innovative and a brand that I think did something similar in the last decade is Bulgari with the Octo Finissimo. They could have done done it fully gold immediately they went titanium. Of course they made tourbillons and everything. But I would actually want to perceive it from a art point of view, from a design point of view. I don't think they've created the Royal back in the day to make it an ultimate flex because we know from collectors back then they didn't sell loads of them. It wasn't a gigantic commercial hit.
- [15:28]
B
I think that it was introduced as a halo to change the perception of the industry, to change the idea of what a luxury watch could be. But going right back to the top point, because I know you're going to go off in many different directions because there's many different directions to explore. However, there's one thing we need to discuss right off the bat and that is that I think that you've got the wrong end of the stick. I don't think this is an article about pricing at all. I did the first time I listened to it. At first I thought, okay, gatekeeping to me normally means we are keeping the poor people out of the castle. And then I listened to the article for a second time. I thought, okay, David's actually talking about the opposite thing. It's about keeping the rich people in the castle, maybe and letting the poor people enjoy the watches. And then I listened to it a third time and I thought it's neither one. It's not gatekeeping in terms of Price. It's gatekeeping in terms of watches that are worthy and unworthy and people who have done the study and spent the time. So time is the currency that's of importance here, and that draws a line, maybe not directly at the center of the industry, but it splits the industry in half from top to bottom. There are watches in the entry level that shouldn't exist, in my opinion. There are watches in the top end that shouldn't exist, in my opinion. And there are collectors on all levels that probably shouldn't be there because they may be buying watches for the wrong reason. But the question is, does that matter?
- [16:45]
C
I'm a little disappointed in myself, actually, that it took so many listens to sort of get the gist. And to anyone listening to this, I do want to give full credit to Eugene Rapkin. He's the one that inspired this article. If you haven't read him, go check out his Instagram, go chat, check out his substack. It's great stuff. Just to clarify very quickly, where I was coming from, it was in fact, that the watch industry has evolved to a point, and I get it, because the rich are getting richer, poor getting poorer, so you go after the people with money.
- [17:18]
A
But in the process of doing this,
- [17:21]
C
and because of things like social media, we are at a point where there is no taste, really. Like, I use the Royal Oak as an example. But if you own a Royal Oak and you own an Eames Chair and you own a Porsche 993, does that mean you have taste? Or does that mean you just bought things? Because people said that's what people with money do. So there's this issue of, I think that there is a lack of taste
- [17:47]
A
in the watch industry.
- [17:48]
C
And what I'm saying, when people say taste, they think taste has to be good. I don't think there's good taste and bad taste. I think they're just point of views that we like or we don't like.
- [17:58]
A
But the important thing is to have
- [18:00]
C
a point of view. And I think that has been lost. So that's one of the main points. The second point is, in fact, that to develop taste, you must have spent time and people with the taste should be gatekeeping more. That is Eugene Rabkin's thesis and that is mine, because that gets us to where we are here in the watch industry, where prices go up and the product just seems the same all the time. And I would say that, yeah, this lack of taste is to the detriment of the business, because it's not interesting to see the 50th Royal Oak come out. It's not interesting to see the 50th Daytona come out. And I personally am at the point where if I see someone wearing a watch, I. I don't think they're cool at all because I've seen so many of them via my feed. And because it takes no thought to say, I want that watch, it takes money. But one last point I'll make before I turn it over to you guys is that, you know, I. I bag on the US a lot, and I think that there's reason for that in early 2026. But in the US doesn't matter how you get your money. And once you've gotten your money, that stands in for decorum, for intellect, apparently. But that is not the case. And so by feeding into this, we get to the point where we are today, which gets back to what Eugene Rapkin was saying, that really the ultimate sign of credentials and knowledge is not what you own, but what you know.
- [19:25]
B
Very good points. Firstly, I'd say I don't think it's your fault in the way the article is written. I think it's the fact that I approached it with a preconception of what the term gatekeeping meant. And so I had to uncouple my ideas of that before I was able to, like, open up to something else. And I think perhaps the biggest point of conjecture people will have with this article is the use of the word taste, because it's, again, it's a loaded term. There are obviously concepts of good taste and bad taste that exist, so we do apply it in that way. I think maybe a better definition of what you're describing is informed decision making rather than taste, because taste is very subjective, right? So you could say, like, you just picked out a guy that's got an Ames Chair, a Royal Oak and a Porsche 993. It says, has he got taste or has he followed the crowd? Well, it could be both, or it could be actually that he does have taste and that is his taste. He may not be on social media. He might just like those things. It's totally possible that your taste aligns with Trent's. It's totally possible that your informed decision making leads you to those purchases. Regardless. You don't have to be off the beaten track, I don't think, to have taste or to have made an informed decision. But I do very much agree, if that's what you're driving at, that we need more informed decision making. But the big question I had at the end of the article, the really the only question I had because I thought you made a great point, it was a great proposition. I thought it was very tightly written and very comprehensively presented is how do we do that? What are the practical steps we can take as an industry to inform people better to stand out above the noise of social media?
- [21:06]
D
Well, obviously everybody listening to the Real Time show has taste informed decision making, is not tacky and is the best collector in the world. So kudos to you if you're listening. But all kidding aside, well said, Rob David. You should not apologize. The article was so good because it was layered and there were. You said so much that you could have dissected it and made few articles out of it. That's why we had to relisten to it. You've said Rapkin so many times, I also had to listen few times to find his correct name to google him. So did you say Eugene Rapkin?
- [21:46]
A
That's correct.
- [21:47]
C
It's Eugene. E U G E N E and then Rabkin R A B U K I N. Okay.
- [21:52]
D
All right. So for our listeners that maybe also didn't hear it properly. So I'm, I, I still didn't google him. So I will. So thank you for pointing me into his direction. You know what's funny? I hate when people say taste good or bad, any taste is good. So that makes me icky. So that really rubbed me the wrong way. Now what resonates with me is that concept of flexing and especially on Instagram. I personally have a love hate relationship with social media. So I obviously also posted all my watches initially as a nerd watch nerd. I'm also a commercial guy so I push to sell. But my biggest joy and therefore we have the Real Time show is I want to share the passion, the metier de art as the French was love to say and share knowledge. And that's my main driver to post almost every day on my Instagram and socials. So bridging that to taste making to help people make informed decisions. I think that's what we try to do and that's a raison d' etre with the Real Time show. And I guess all three of us in all our endeavors that touch upon the watchmaking industry. But what I found funny just now, you didn't say a girl or gal or boy or man buying a Rolex watch or a diamond studded Rolex. You didn't say a Porsche Cayenne or you didn't say a Vitra chair. No, you Said Royal Oak Eames chair and a 993. So that's already an informed decision on my behalf. If I see somebody owning, rocking that stuff. So. And. And I now appreciate that person, for whatever reason they've chosen that sub. So. So if we had to put our high snobiety hat on, and being a curator, a gatekeeper, I have only one rule of thumb. I'll ask them, why did you choose what you've chosen? And if they'll say, because my neighbor has it, because it's an investment. Those two things make me icky. All other reasons cool for me now where I wanted to take it. Now, that also really got my ears buzzing is the word gatekeeper. Who keeps the other gatekeepers?
- [24:45]
C
Right.
- [24:45]
D
So who do we decide that are the gatekeepers? So maybe let's make it personal. David, who do you think in the watch industry and or luxury industry are good gatekeepers for you personally? And while you have the mic, I would love you to bridge this story to those fashion houses you love so much, because what I do love about fashion is they have those designers that push the envelope and they are the tastemakers, and they make or break a brand. I think of Tom Ford at Gucci, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
- [25:29]
C
Okay, there is a ton, a ton to talk about here. And Rob, you left off with, how do we enforce this gatekeeping? And I'm going to try and run that into Alan's question. So I first, you know, I want to go back to those three items that I listed. The Porsche, the Audemars Piguet, and the Eames Chair. The irony is that when you have this knowledge, those things are just examples among so many others that I actually wouldn't pick. I listed those because they're the most obvious. But. And I am not an architect, I am not a car designer, but I also have spent a ton of time refining my taste. I would actually say that I don't want a Porsche 993. I'd like a Maserati Mirac. I do not want an Eames Chair. I want a Le Corbusier because it's French, among other reasons. And I don't want a Royal Oak. I want a Chanel Jumping Hour. So if you have developed your taste, you can list the icons, because those are icons. I'm not taking away from what those are, but you also know a lot more that goes underneath that. And you should be able to comfortably say, I'm buying those things because I like them, not because someone else is necessarily going to care. So that's the first point.
- [26:39]
A
The second point is that in terms
- [26:41]
C
of who gets to Gatekeep and how we do that. Rob, to your point, Alan, you brought up a really good example of the Real Time Show. We're blowing our horns here, but we take no advertising. I'm very fortunate that you two let me say exactly what I want to say and you two say exactly what you want to say. And so I would like to think that if someone is listening to the Real Time show versus so many other watch podcasts or watch blogs who are just putting out top tens or top fives or best watches you can buy for 5,000 bucks, it's not really very interesting. So I would assume that if you're listening to the Real Time show, you are getting under the covers of the watch industry and therefore you can make more important decisions and you can feel empowered to choose what you want. Because the three of us have never, as far as I know, ever said, this watch sucks or you are a tasteless person for wearing this watch. Like, we celebrate everything, and if you like it, that's totally cool. So I'm going to wrap this set of thoughts up by going back to your ultimate question, Alan, which was, who gets to Gatekeep? Ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm just a jerk on the Internet saying stuff, so you can listen to me or not, but at the same time, I've spent a ton of time developing my taste and looking things up just because I was interested in them. And ultimately, that's what it comes down to is knowledge is free. Every single bit of knowledge out there is free. So if you're content looking at Instagram feeds of Royal Oaks and Daytonas, that's fine, but at the same time, I'm not going to give them a lot of credibility as a tastemaker. The tastemaker could be anyone. It could be someone sitting in their bedroom in Idaho with something really interesting to say and a different point of view. And that just comes from being willing to look into things and having a certain level of courage to go against the grain a little bit.
- [28:37]
B
I'm pretty sure that I've called some watchers crap in our time on air, so I can't quite pretend to be as pious as all that in terms of who gatekeeps gatekeepers. Great question, Alon. I think maybe the consumer needs to gatekeep their own gatekeepers to a point. I think a lot of responsibility falls into the hands of the person that is being gatekept to Be conscious of that fact. Are we good gatekeepers? I'd say the thing that makes a good gatekeeper has got to be, has got to be knowledge and there's got to be experience. It's no good having one person. Obviously you need a whole church of gatekeepers. And if people are wanting to make an informed purchasing decision, they should listen to as many people as they can who have experience. Because you don't want to listen to every jerk on the Internet saying everything that they feel if they've got no foundation from which to speak. So that's, that's something. I do think that we have that advantage. You know, we've been in the industry a long time. We've, we've served multiple roles. We understand how things work and the process of watch design and maybe what makes a good watch, contextually speaking, in the history of horology. But again, you know, we have our opinions and our opinions are freely shared, but they can also be freely dismissed. And we hope that our audience does exactly that. I do think self gatekeeping is important, but then we go back to the question of how. Again, this is, this is where I come down to. Because we're encouraging a mindset shift. There's a lot of content out there already. Cutting through all of that content and reaching people in a way that encourages them to actually do the research. To accrue that knowledge is not easy. Because, David, you say knowledge is free, but the accrual of knowledge takes time, which is not really free, has a value, whatever people put on it. It seems like it doesn't cost anything, but you could be using that time to do something else. You could be using that time to make money. You know, so it's something you have to really dedicate yourself to that lofty goal of accruing enough experience to be credible.
- [30:44]
C
Yeah, yeah, but this is, this is the other point. Like, I could be spending my time making money, but look, I'm getting into social commentary now, but all these billionaires, and I'll name names because they frankly have no reason to care about me, but Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, all these people, Mark Zuckerberg, do they have taste? No, no, they have no taste. They are empty vessels into which tons and tons of money has been poured. And that's the product.
- [31:09]
B
Do they not have taste? You can't say because they have money, they don't have taste. I would agree that they buy some pretty, you know, but there's not. You can't qualify them as having money and therefore they have no, taste. Those two things aren't a corollary.
- [31:22]
A
That's fair.
- [31:23]
C
They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. But my point is that I think that a lot of the times today they are. Because if you look back, and we're getting into even a broader scope now, but in history going way, way back, the people with money were the ones that you look to to set taste, because they had the money to commission nice things, they had the time. They weren't out working in the fields. Like, they had the time to cultivate these things.
- [31:50]
A
And that's great.
- [31:51]
C
I think humanity's better off. Like, I live 20 minutes from a chateau, which prior to not long ago would have been a sign of unhealthy excess. And now it's just a really beautiful
- [32:01]
A
thing to look at.
- [32:02]
C
So it's great. But I think that nowadays, as social media has come in and flattened all of this, people do conflate money with taste. They absolutely do. And so what I would say is that just because you have money, that does not mean that you have taste. Like nowadays, unfortunately, you can accumulate money in a lot of very unsavory ways that do not require any kind of cultivation of yourself.
- [32:27]
A
Yeah.
- [32:28]
B
But to be fair, David, I think although my personal definition of taste seems to sort of aesthetically align with yours, I don't think that anything's changed. How can you say that the people in the past were credible tastemakers versus people today? If people in the past had a consistent level of taste, if they had a certain thing made, commissioned perhaps for them, when they reached that level of wealth, wouldn't the general populace aspire to that thing that they had made? How's it different from the Royal Oak being the icon? Instead of, say, a Cartier dress watch, which may be more elegant and we may say is more tasteful colloquially, but how is it practically any different?
- [33:08]
C
I think that a hundred years ago, 200 years ago, the tastemakers were wealthy because they were the only ones that could do that. And obviously people looked up to them. And it's the same idea as now with influencers. What I'm saying is that there are tastemakers that exist, like Eugene Rapkin. Eugene Rapkin, as far as I understand, is not a rich person, but I respect his opinions a thousand times more than some random influencer online that's flying around in private jets because it's not interesting nowadays. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that objects like the Royal Oak are not nice. They are well built, they are well designed. But what I'm getting at with taste is that they don't signify that you have a point of view. They don't. I would much rather talk to someone that has like Andy Warhol. Andy Warhol's known for wearing what the Cartier? Among other things. That was never set to the right time. That's interesting. I think he kind of wore it nonchalantly. John Mayer, who I'm a huge fan of, musically huge. His taste seems to be quirky changes on watches that are just kind of boring at this point. So all respect to John Mayer, I mean that. Is he really a tastemaker in the most classic sense of the term. To me, no taste.
- [34:28]
D
You know, I agree with what I don't think. I don't even want to use the word taste. And you have to add good or bad taste. It's about style. Somebody has his or hers own style and I guess the more it deviates from the average will link it to good or bad. Regarding the comment that rich per definition, don't have taste. And I think you should use the word style. Let's take talk about Zook for a moment. Okay. He had a long time geeky campus dorm style then and he had money for decades almost. And then he decided to take a stylist on to create a new style for himself. He started designing his own T shirts and then suddenly out of the blue, he was rocking a gigantic collection of roto luxury. We could pause there for a moment and do a voting round if he has good or bad taste in watches, if you want. But he's developed his own style right now. Okay. Could you have done it without money? Probably. Did he do it because he has money? Probably. So we could pause there, we could play a little game if you guys want as an intermezzo to say who or what has good or bad taste. But what I find more interesting is what is everybody's style? And even more importantly, why is their style what it is? You know what I'm saying? You love the Chanel watch because you love fashion housing, you love French, that that gives a direction to your style. We can definitely say that Rob has a style. Is he a tastemaker? Yeah. The day that men will rock Bulgari Serpenti watch, for example, is because of the one and only Rob Nuts. And nobody else. And I know Baba is listening, I know Catherine is listening. Fabrizio Bonamas is listening and he's pushing the envelope by pushing Bulgari to make a titanium Serpenti watch that's unisex or gender fluid or Whatever you need to call it today. So that's real style, that's good taste. Probably 90 will think it's bad taste. Who gives a fuck?
- [36:48]
C
So, no, but that's, that's. I think that's the point I'm trying to make though, is that. So my style is actually personally pretty boring, but it's also deliberate and I could go into a hundred different directions if someone wanted to, about my jeans and what other options someone could buy, like where it's made from. I think that's what it comes down to. But to your point, Alon, all these brands, and they really do like, these brands will make very specific watches for specific people. And that's not what gets picked up on because it's not the volume seller. And I understand it from a business point of view. And I also don't want to be so naive as to say, well, we should just take rich people out of the watch equation because all of the stuff that I think is neat just exists, like the JLC gyro tourbillons and, you know, insert your cool watch here. They cost money to conceive, they cost money to make, they cost money to sell. I understand that, but what I'm trying to get at is that going back to Eugene Rabkin's point is that social media is a huge culprit here, but it's also just people's insecurities. Like, again, I will never understand or believe that people with billions of dollars need people's approval because I already don't care about what people think of me and I am nowhere close to a billionaire. So it just blows my mind that they exist in this way. But I think what is most, I would say, pertinent to the article is that we have social media and it had just sort of flattened what people want to aspire to. We are at a time when 6 billion people could want 6 billion different things. And that's not what's happened. Everyone has just converged onto the same maybe 10 that accelerated during COVID And I don't see any end to this trend.
- [38:35]
D
That's. That's human nature. I, I've been saying this for many years, that I want a psychologist on the Real Time show as a guest host or a interviewee talk about the topic why we collect and what it does to us. But now you've triggered me. I want to build a whole series because everybody seeks approval and everybody's insecure. It has nothing to do with money, because the more money you have doesn't mean it's there is a correlation that you're less insecure. Everybody seeks approval. I seek your approval when I write an article. You seek approval whenever you want something horological or media, whatever. Whenever I do something, I want Rob's approval. As a podcast host, no, but the
- [39:20]
C
key distinction, because I thought about this, the only time that I'm really looking for approval is if it's something I'm producing for someone, because that is a reflection of me. And all those examples Alan, you listed come down to your production of something. And that is totally valid. But when we get into consumption, we're somehow saying that I want to get the approval of the person next to me because of the stuff I own, which is the total opposite of what I'm looking to do. I'm looking to buy things because they interest me and because they make me feel good. And if someone else likes or doesn't like that, who cares? But if I'm turning in a report to them, or to you, Alan, or to you, Rob, absolutely. I'm looking for your approval because I want to my good work to be a positive reflection on me. And that ironically, that's what takes the time. Money cannot buy that. Either I can write a good report that's insightful or it's not.
- [40:12]
A
And that comes from the fact I've
- [40:14]
C
spent years honing my craft and building up my internal knowledge base.
- [40:18]
B
I do think there's one interesting thing that you raised there. You see that the report is a reflection of you, but it's really, to me, it's more a reflection of your understanding of the person for whom you're producing it. And that is validating in itself, like, oh, you listened and you got it right and you produced the document that they required to perform whatever function. Now, if you look at taste or decision making in watchmaking, in purchasing through that lens, it flips it somewhat, it gives it a different flavor. It's not just like, oh, what do I like? It's more like, oh, I understand what the watchmaker was trying to do with that. And I've chosen it for those reasons. Like, that's an interesting dynamic between you and the watchmaker. I know you're using the Royal Oak as an example. It's just an avatar for this discussion. It's not necessarily to say, oh, the Royal Oak is shit, obviously. And we're not saying if anyone has a Royal Oak, that's a bad decision. I personally think it's a beautiful looking watch until Audemars Piguet dropped that gorgeous dress watch. The other day, whose name I've forgotten. If anyone could remember it, that'd be wonderful. It was my favorite ap. Now I have a new one. I still come back to the point because I think it's an interesting one to discuss, is like, how do we do what you want us to do in the industry here? How do we get this information across to the consumer in a way that is palatable for them? How do we change tastemaking?
- [41:36]
C
So this is the thing. So Rob, you were talking about the Neo Frame Jump Hour. Who's going to buy that? That is my question. Who is going to be the first person with the money that can afford that to step out and buy it? And going back to your question, Rob is like, and I think I mentioned this in the article, taste really comes from the people that are willing to step out. There's an experiment that was done or it's a experiment where how do you get people dancing at a park? Well, you've got to have someone that's got to start dancing in a park just randomly. But then more importantly, you have to have someone else backing them up. It's almost the second person that's the most key to this because they're the ones that get the ball rolling. So what you need actually is a couple of brave people to say, yeah, like I'm going to buy this. What's crazy here with watches is that some AP boutique is going to make someone buy that Jump hour so they can get the 50th release of the Royal Oak. And that person is not going to wear it. They're going to flip it for probably 70 cents on the dollar and no one's going to wear it. So this is, this is the irony is that even the people with the means don't. And the thing is, again, this is a case where a rich person could be a tastemaker. Some rich person with some renown could wear that Neo Frame Jump hour and be called the Tastemaker. It's the lowest hanging fruit ever. But I don't think they're going to do that.
- [43:02]
D
So two very interesting things because I wanted to say in the end, why do we want the approval? Because we're all sheep and we live in a herd. And I loved your metaphor of dancing. We need more people. And it's almost copy paste behavior and it's like a little tornado that who is the taste maker and who follows? So very interesting metaphor, very interesting discussion about the Neo Frame by the Malpig that they launched a while back is I find it very Cool that they did this to break the mold from a Royal Oak and then they did the code 1159 and then there is like a big gap in their collection. Unfortunately, it's not a new design. They reissued and retro. Actually almost antique because it's a 1920s design. Very cool. But are they tastemakers? Unfortunately, I dare to say not. They're a bit late to the party. The jump hour vibe has been done. This should have been before Cartier talking about who's a tastemaker here.
- [44:10]
A
So.
- [44:11]
D
So that's interesting. Will it be a flip watch? I don't think so. Is it good that they did it? I think so. They diversified, they brought the bold, they kept it in their own heritage. So I think it's very good. And I actually think that taste makers will buy it. Are they uber, uber cutting edge, avant garde, this stick, setting the, the trend for the newest cycle of fashion. Trends, whatever. Because that's. Let's. Let's bridge it now to fashion because watchmaking is linked to fashion.
- [44:45]
B
I wanted to respond to that point. I would, I would buy that watch. I don't have the money for it. I don't have the money for any Audemars Piguet. Had I the money for any Audemars Piguet, I would not have bought a Royal Oak, but I would buy that because I always wanted to buy something by ap, but I didn't necessarily want to just have another Royal Oak because to me it's like. Well, it's not really a statement of my career or my experience. It means nothing to me. It's just an object. Now this watch, on the other hand, because it has no heritage in the modern era, is. It's a free pass. It's like I can express my love and respect for that brand while not wearing the common fare. So I think that it might have some success. Yeah, I think it's a great alternative to something like a Tank or a Reverso. And I don't think there are many of those at that level. We've seen a load of great watches come out from smaller brands. Like Derek, like Maine also did a lovely jump power. We've seen. Okay. Fizz with the archival, with the rectangular and a cushion shaped jump power. So they've kind of touched on both things in different formats. But it's a thing, it's happening. But we hadn't seen it from ap and I'm glad that we did.
- [45:55]
A
Yeah. But.
- [45:56]
C
So I had a professor at business school who always said, you cannot make a data set out of the data point of me, one data point and I'd put an anecdote in and rob you without knowing it, put another one in. But I want to pull that apart. You had said, you said, I don't have the money for this AP or any other ap. I would pick something else. And that's exactly my point is that when you have the money, you're like, I don't need to spend time on anything. I'll just buy what everyone says is cool. But because you do not have the cash for this, and full disclosure, neither do I, we have the time and the inclination to go look for other things, which maybe to someone might seem like just the cheaper alternatives, but really that is the development of taste and going back to the watch industry and fashion as a whole. And this is something that Eugene Rapkin says all the time about these fashion houses like Dior, Louis Vuitton, prior to now again, going back to what I said about a hundred years ago, they were making true haute couture by people with money who also had taste because they were having one of one pieces made. And they had to very clearly articulate what it was that they wanted.
- [47:03]
B
When everything's unique, it's ubiquitous. I mean, if all you've got is one of ones, that's, you know, that's what people will aspire to. A one of one. Right. So it's still a trend setting thing.
- [47:13]
A
No, but that's not the case because
- [47:14]
C
now you would think that with so
- [47:17]
A
much money in such few people's pockets,
- [47:19]
C
you would think that there were there, there'd be this explosion of one of ones that are still interesting. Like, I'm not saying that the one of one existing is bad. I'm saying that the watch industry actually is going in the opposite direction where they're saying, okay, 90% of all purchasing power is in 5% of people's pockets. And they seem to just want Royal Oaks and Daytonas. So that's what they're going to give them.
- [47:46]
B
Okay, so firstly, I don't think I said what you said I said. I said I don't have enough money to buy an ap. If I did, I wouldn't buy a Royal Oak, but I would buy that ap because I want to buy something from ap. I would buy the art Deco John Power. So I'm saying I don't have enough money for that watch. So obviously I'm not the target customer, but that allows me to make an informed decision and buy an.
- [48:06]
C
No, but you picked a different thing. You are secure enough in your taste that you're saying I would.
- [48:10]
A
That's.
- [48:11]
C
And that's exactly what I was saying. I was making the distinction between the royal oak.
- [48:14]
B
Well, you said that. I said that I wouldn't buy an ap, not a Royal oak. I said I wouldn't buy Royal oak.
- [48:19]
C
Exactly. But that still, that still supports my point though.
- [48:22]
B
You would buy. That is your point.
- [48:23]
C
Yeah, yeah. You'd buy the non conventional one.
- [48:25]
B
Yeah, I'd buy the non conventional one. So this idea of like, why aren't the ultra rich having unique. One of one piece is made? I'd say a lot of them actually are. Probably a lot of like Jacob and company customizations are being made for people like Conor McGregor and Mark Zuckerberg and whatnot. But there is a good reason for it that is kind of separate from taste. And that's how the, the culture of watchmaking has evolved since the past. And we're talking about watchmaking specifically. Of course, your point is absolutely valid when it comes to like furniture and cars as well. Because it's less of a collecting thing. They're more items that you, you really would rely on your taste to buy. Watchmaking is a collector's habit. Like the implication is that you will have more than one of these things. And being part of something, being part of a group is attractive. Not because you want to be like the other people, maybe because a little bit you want to separate yourself from everybody else that's not in that group. But it's also being part of a movement and being part of a heritage, having some context that fits within a brand's development. One of ones are great in some cases, but I don't like them personally. And I don't think I have no taste whatsoever. I think I have decent esthetic leanings, but again, it's entirely subjective. People could disagree with me. But my point is I want my watch to be contextualizable. I think I've just made up a word, but when I look at Moritz Grossman, for example, they often do these one on ones for high end collectors and I'm like, okay, fine, but is it a Moritz Grossman? That's how I feel. Is that what the brand sees itself as? The brand should lead. The brand should define taste and the consumers should buy within it. Now, ultra limited piece. Very nice. Five pieces, ten pieces. Great. I'd rather that than one of one, because if I've got one of one, I don't feel it's as special. I feel it's just like cheating almost. I don't know. Do you understand what I'm trying to outline there?
- [50:19]
C
I totally get it on one hand. I know personally I don't know that I'd want a1of1 Because I do. I'm wearing an Omega Aqua Terra. Now. I like the fact that it's a well made object that is special but without being special. And if you have a one of one, it just maybe it's because I'm not in that sphere. It feels kind of weird to me. So I guess what I'm saying, Rob, is I agree with you.
- [50:38]
A
I see where you come from.
- [50:40]
B
I do have to admit I might have just lied inadvertently because I've been thinking of getting a Straum Jan Mayan steel white dial and having it diamond set for a laugh. Maybe a rainbow bezel because I've always wanted one of these rainbow bezels. But I don't want to buy a Hublot or a Daytona.
- [51:02]
D
But of course you're lying because the ultimate limited edition is a unique piece and if you're really a taste maker or you think you have a style or your own style, you want to customize and have one on one. What I want to say and you just touched upon it, Rob. And I want to maybe change the perspective on things. Truth is in the eye, the beholder. But if you talk about the blue or red pill and I'm referring to the matrix, there is a whole world that we don't see. The is a gigantic stealth world society that you don't see on Instagram or socials. If you don't encounter their wrists, you have no idea what watches that you're wearing. They don't talk, it's silent, it whispers. And if we don't circulate in their circles, you'll never know about them. And often if they have unique pieces or not, we don't even know what watches are made for them. I know from the auto luxury manufacturers, either by seeing on benches while visiting the ateliers what they're making or what they've told me or pictures they've shown me or these collectors that I encounter or simply wealthy people. I don't like the word rich, so very affluent maybe is they do have their own taste, we just don't see it. So it's a segment that we're referring at and talking of the royals from the Middle Ages and the very wealthy Europeans that you are referring to, David. It's funny, I'm associated to a website called Bear Leaders and that's a profession I believe in the 18th century, those were the tastemakers in Europe and the royals and blue bloods would hire them to guide them in everything that's en vogue. So visit cities, restaurants, courtiers, watchmakers and whatever is good. So they were the taste makers. They were used to call bear leaders because they would lead them literally over the mountains in Europe where they need to stay away from bears on their trips through Europe. So. So I found that funny. Talking of trendsetters in 18th, 19th century Europe, the first thing that comes to mind is dandyism. I don't remember what prince or king that was in England. Rob, help me out here. It's your royal families, but you might
- [53:35]
B
be thinking of George, Prince Regent in the Hanoverian era. I don't know, I'll have to look it up.
- [53:42]
D
One of them.
- [53:43]
A
So.
- [53:44]
D
And bridging that to modern colleagues today, the first person that comes to mind is Nick, folks. He really has his own style, He's a tastemaker, he does whatever he wants and he could be a modern era dandy. So. So that's interesting. And maybe I don't know when we want to round up because we can ramble on for at least one or two hours. I'm quite sure. On this topic is I would love maybe to end this show at a certain point when we do, all of us, to name more tastemakers in our industry that we think are tastemakers or gatekeepers or whatever we want to call it.
- [54:26]
C
Yeah, as you actually, as you mentioned, Nick folks, I was thinking, who would I name if I was asked? I think Waco. Waco, definitely. He's interesting because he does have the means to indulge in things, but he also wears whatever he wants to. He's in a couple of collabs with Ralph Lauren, which were super pointed if you understand the references. So I'd go with Waco. And the second person or group of people I'd go for would be the Worn and Wound Crew. They seem to have a very specific aesthetic with their website. They'll have very defined ideas of what they like personally and they're always sharing them. So those would be the names I would give.
- [55:03]
B
I have a question which maybe will bring us to the end of this analysis, which has been interesting and labyrinthine and fiery and all the things that we want from these talks. What was your motivation for writing this article? Because I still haven't got an answer to how we're actually supposed to implement any of the things you'd like to see change. But why did you write it
- [55:27]
C
actually? So you're Asking me about my writing process generally, whether you realized it or not. But basically I have a steady flow of things that I look at. Things that come to my inbox in Eugene Rapkins newsletter is one of those. And I just had this thought. And actually, as a matter of fact, when this is, it's all coming back to me now. When I received this article, I was actually in Chamonix, which is a well known ski town in France and maybe in Europe, and we'd never been before. And my wife and I were like, okay, let's just go check it out. And as soon as we drove in, as soon as we drove in, I was just repulsed. It was crowds everywhere. It was what I thought was going to be like a town. And I need to be super careful how I say this, but like for French people, you know, like French people, they go, they go have fun in Chamonix. It might have been that way 50 or 60 years ago, but now it
- [56:17]
B
was in 1990 when I went, it was lovely.
- [56:20]
C
Well, so there you go. But now it's basically just an agglomeration of high end outdoor stores and people who are coming from all different parts of the world, fair enough. But all from the same financial strata and all doing and consuming the same things. And as I was feeling these feelings like, I just need to get out of here. This is not my scene at all. I got this article from Eugene Rabkin in my inbox and I was like, this is just vocalizing what I'm thinking perfectly at this moment. And then on top of that, I was like, okay, Rob has asked me for an article and this ties in
- [56:53]
A
very well to all the themes I
- [56:55]
C
always talk about, which is pricing, company strategy, really not focusing on the people building the next level of the pipeline. And so all of those things together, I was like, this is almost one to one with the watch industry. And that is how he got the article.
- [57:10]
B
I guess what I'm asking really is what did you want from it? Like, do you want to change the way people buy watches?
- [57:18]
C
So as with a lot of the things that I write, and this is why I'm always thankful to you and Alan, I just want to be able to be heard like, I have something I want to say. And rather than just rant to my wife about watch industry pricing, I want a larger forum to say what I think. So that's the first thing. I always just have ideas and I want a platform through which to communicate them. As far as can I change behavior? No, look, I'm not That delusional. However, what I think if you said, okay, David, you must give one recommendation or two recommendations as to how we can change this. Let's just be, first of all, obviously, don't be a jerk. Don't not tell someone something if they ask you a question. But I would say starting with us, let's make an effort to always look beyond what's just being presented to us. And then from the people asking and trying to get into the hobby or trying to get into anything, I would say, and this is something I apply to myself, is don't be lazy. Don't be lazy. I mean, don't just go to a Facebook group and say, what should I buy? You know, run the Google searches, try new stuff out, take risks. And I think that in the process of doing that, you will find that things that seemed very appealing before, like this royal oak is the avatar for taste, may not seem as interesting because you've opened your eyes up to a world of other more impressive and more fun things.
- [58:42]
B
I think it's very interesting. I think the only prescription I could think of to change consumer habits, especially in the research phase, is to do something about media. You know, do we need more industry professionals in media or would that in most cases just result in even heavier bias? Do we need better flags or warnings on articles that are paid for? Do we need the exposure of brand partnerships with supposedly independent media titles? I mean, it sounds like a pretty radical thing to request, but how can we trust the information on these major, major players unless we know they're being totally transparent with us?
- [59:26]
C
I think this is my last thought because as Alan said, we could go on forever. The difference between a Hodinkee and I'm picking them because they're kind of like the most well known one, and a Europa Star, like, which is the one that's going to be more in depth and more conducive to developing real taste, Right? Alan, you know you've read Europa Star all the time, like decades, right? And that's how you know so much about the industry. If you read Hodinkee for a decade, it's been around for probably a decade and a half now, you're going to know things. You are going to know things. I don't want to take away from the work that they do. But it's not, it is not going to be as deep and it is not going to be as conducive to forming a broad taste as reading something like Europa Star. They're two very different things. But which is the one that's most well known in popular culture. That's the point here.
- [60:17]
B
So we need to put the real academics of the industry front and center. We need people reading Gisbert Brunner's books and Peter Braun's journalism. And yeah, Europa Star is a great example of a title that does that very, very well. I suppose we should try and play our own part in that. I think we're doing our very best at the moment, but if the audience has any suggestions as to how we could improve, then please do get in touch. I hope you enjoyed this audicle and audical analysis. It has been one of the most enjoyable so far for me. I think it's a great topic and I don't think we've really reached the end of the discussion, so let's continue it offline in the TRTS network on WhatsApp. If you'd like to join, then get in touch via the Instagram channel herealtime show or via the contact form on the official website www.therealtime show. We'll be back soon with more top quality watch content and interviews with the industry's finest, as well as more articles and analyses. Until then, stay safe and keep on ticking.
- [61:11]
C
It.