Last edited by badbackdan; December 19th, 2017 at 14:59.
There are many watches that are hard to find yet they cost pennies and are not collectable :)
Chaos is my focus
You are working with a false premise.
As I said, the co-signed version is modestly more collectible than Geneve models because of the word "Seamaster", not because it is co-signed. People like the Seamaster name, so the Seamaster Geneve is comparable to Seamaster models, not Geneve models. And to anticipate your next suggestion: no, the co-signed version is not more desirable than the regular Seamaster model.
With a bit more experience following the vintage Omega market, you will look back on this thread and see how obvious this is.
False premise? I'm only using the co-signed term to signify the Seamaster on the dial so we're basically agreeing here I think, though not with respect to the numbers as a consideration on collectability of an omega seamaster/geneve.
Never crossed my mind that the cosigned version would be more collectable than the regular seamaster. Although this is now interesting. Consider this. If the numbers had worked out that there were only 1000 pieces of the seamaster geneve made, of which only 3 survived, which would be much more collectable the regular seamaster or a comparable seamaster geneve, same caliber, same dial, same everything except of course not a unicase? Even if it is just the addition of the seamaster on the dial. Put simply you could always get a regular seamaster, but you'd have to search long and hard to get a seamaster geneve and that would take time. What's the old saying. Time is money.
Let's just call it stress testing the logic to see if there is a false premise here. Remember we are talking about an already collectable item, cosigned or not.
Returning to the original question, to sum up so far the conclusions from the exchanges, the cosigned Seamaster Geneve is modestly more collectable than the 'Geneve' largely because of the Seamaster in the dial and not because of any inherent difference in quality or other characteristic, but for historical reasons alone. The difference in the approximate numbers doesn't appear to have any effect on the collectability of this line of Omega. I am still not convinced though that numbers don't play a part in collectability of an Omega line, or rather I am sure that numbers do play a part especially if they are extreme.
Maybe You could just write those numbers? The real ones, not assumptions
Chaos is my focus
For example, as there are a huge number of existing, vintage Rolex Submariners, and a very large number circulating in the market at any given time, rare variations do command premiums, and sometimes they are very high. On the other hand, to use one of many examples, let's take the original IWC Yacht Club model line. Extremely successful for many years after having been introduced in the '60s, good examples of these excellent, understated sport watches have been bringing around $2k in the vintage market for a long time. Part of the reason for their popularity is that they typically feature cal. 854/8541 automatic movements, which were one of the very best made during the Golden Era of Swiss watchmaking (1940s–'60s). And, as they were produced during an era when automatics were all the rage, the vast majority of them were automatic.
But a very small percentage – I would estimate no more than 5% – were manual-wind, and fitted with IWC's also fine cal. 89 movements. These rare manual-wind Yacht Clubs should, based on scarcity, command a notable premium over their relatively common automatic counterparts, yet they don't. Why? Because there aren't enough of them circulating in the market to generate wide interest among collectors! That's what I mean by critical mass.
Another example, though broader, would be Audemars Piguet. Undoubtedly one of the three top-tier manufacturers during the Golden Era, they were also by far the lowest production. This means that there aren't enough examples circulating in the market to generate many posts on forums such as this, or photos on Instagram, etc. So, while they produced some beautiful watches that were every bit the equivalent quality of Patek Philippe, and in much smaller numbers, their values are typically much lower.
Last edited by Tony C.; December 20th, 2017 at 13:47.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)