The Watchmaking World Has A New “Big Three”
And they’re not brands, they’re watchmakers.
One of the oldest tropes in fine watchmaking is that there is – or was – a “big three,” of traditional Swiss fine watchmaking. These were the classic Swiss fine watchmaking brands: Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, and Audemars Piguet. All three achieved their claim to fame and their ranking (they are sometimes also referred to as the “Holy Trinity” of fine watchmaking) through a combination of longevity, quality, and their wide-ranging grasp of, and expression of, complicated watchmaking.
The modern landscape has changed this perception – Audemars Piguet’s fame nowadays rests almost exclusively on the enormous commercial success of a single design (the Offshore would be seen as simply another variation on the Royal Oak in any company that maintained a more diverse design portfolio) and Vacheron Constantin, though a repository of wonderful quality, has for various reasons, never quite achieved the perceived level of prestige of its arch-rival, Patek Philippe. Patek has had the advantage of not only longevity, but also perceived value retention which is the envy of other luxury watchmaking houses, and of course, there are plenty of enthusiasts who think with some degree of justification that the whole idea of a “Holy Trinity” has been hopelessly out of date at least since 1994, when A. Lange & Söhne was reborn.
Against all this, there is, or rather was, the world of independent watchmaking where, if you had a good eye and knew where to look, you could find pockets of quality and expressions of imagination which were harder to find at any of the major recognized brands – at least that was the perception. A major factor in the rise of independent watchmaking was the fact that a certain kind of collector would prefer to feel as if they are supporting a watchmaker rather than a brand, and who moreover feel as if that while it takes little imagination and risks very little in terms of personal expression to wear a watch from a recognized brand, that on the other hand, it shows courage and a real viewpoint on watchmaking, to patronize a Vianney Halter or a Max Büsser or an URWERK or De Bethune.
If the last couple of years are any indication, though, the whole idea that there are a certain small number of brands with an unassailable position as Roi de la Colline (that there’s “king of the hill” en Francais, mon ami) has been overturned by the skyrocketing success, both critically and financially, of some independent watchmakers. I say “watchmakers” rather than “brands” advisedly because the success of this small group is very much dependent on the fact that their patrons want to, and do feel, a sense of connection with a person rather than a brand.
If the traditional Holy Trinity of watchmakers’ appeal was based on their perceived excellence as exponents of traditional fine watchmaking values, then we can identify a corresponding Big Three of independent watchmakers: Philippe Dufour, Roger Smith, and F. P. Journe.
They are of course not the only independent watchmakers who have achieved prominence from working at least somewhat within the context of classic Swiss-French watchmaking values – I think of Rexhep Rexhepi, Kari Voutilainen, and Laurent Ferrier, for example, to pick just three. A nd then there are the independents whose stock in trade is iconoclastic design rather than a personal vision of classical watchmaking – Richard Mille, or MB&F, or again, URWERK.
But currently in terms of perceived long term value as expressions of classical watchmaking, I think Dufour, Smith, and Journe represent increasingly for collectors and enthusiasts what the Big Three used to have to themselves. There are a couple of caveats here. One is that Rexhep Rexhepi arguably should have a seat at the high table and I would definitely concur with that argument in terms of quality of watchmaking, rarity, and value retention. And Rexhepi and Akrivia are not exactly newcomers. Maybe compared to the hypothetical IHT (Independent Holy Trinity) he’s new to the game, but it’s worth bearing in mind that his recent spectacular rise in visibility (and in prices –we’ve all seen what’s happened to Chronomètre Contemporain prices, assuming you can even find one on the block) is not exactly a flash in the pan; he founded his company at the age of 26, in 2012.
The original Big Three obviously can still command Big Prices and they still represent the lion’s share of value (along with Rolex, of course) in the auction market, but the IHT and their colleagues are a sign, I think, that the market is well along in expanding its views on what constitutes value and that brand per se, while an important part of the equation, is not the only part.
Of course, the whole idea of a Big Three is itself a little antiquated. The term re-purposed for independents is an interesting intuition pump, but just as the original classification is at this point of more interest historically than it is a guide to where the highest levels of value and quality can be found, it’s also of limited value in taking a sharp snapshot of the state of independent watchmaking. Still, as rule of thumb, it tells us something interesting about where the auction market is going. In a volatile and downward trending world, the retreat from investment as the primary motivation for trading in pre-owned and vintage watches, and the rise of appreciation for commitment to qualitatively honest watchmaking, may be more than just another fluctuation in the market – it may be a sea change in the perspective of watch culture as a whole.
Headline image, F. P. Journe Chronomètre à Résonance, “Black Label,” at Christie’s “Passion For Time” Geneva; estimate, CHF 385,000-550,000; price, CHF 504,000.