Sorry, but Rolex UK prices up again today

[noTAGlove]

Sadly the reality is many people on “lists” will never get the call.

It’s a trinket not a kidney transplant.

[JGJG]

It’s a trinket not a kidney transplant.

Best bit of perspective here this year :)

[pete-r]

Have the bulk of the Cellini models been dumped now or were they gone already?

Always liked the idea of the simple time only model in white dial/white gold.

[wileeeeeey]

Have the bulk of the Cellini models been dumped now or were they gone already?

Always liked the idea of the simple time only model in white dial/white gold.

Yep all gone now, only the rose gold moonphase now. Think they discontinued earlier last year.

[monogroover]

You seem to forget that many of us have a significant interest in, and passion for, horology. After all, this is a watch forum (despite the trials and tribulations contained herein). Yes, you can buy a watch for less than a fiver. But that's not the point and I think you know that. The reasons for collecting watches are many and varied. For me, it isn't about money or investment. It is more about an appreciation of fine engineering, craftsmanship and artistic expression. It is obviously not just about telling the time!

They're not about telling the time, no. But they're still mass-produced steel watches, designed on computers and churned out on machines.

[wileeeeeey]

Sorry but saying expensive watches aren't for telling the time is stupid. Genuinely stupid.

That's like saying expensive cars aren't for driving.

[petay993]

They're not about telling the time, no. But they're still mass-produced steel watches, designed on computers and churned out on machines.

At a rate of over 1 million per year....and rising. 1million!!

[~dadam02~]

At a rate of over 1 million per year....and rising. 1million!!

You'd think the grey's would be running out of space to house most of these by now.

[walkerwek1958]

Sorry but saying expensive watches aren't for telling the time is stupid. Genuinely stupid.

That's like saying expensive cars aren't for driving.

I think the point being made is valid, expensive watches have become items of conspicuous consumption, the fact that they tell the time has become a secondary consideration. Same applies to expensive cars thesedays.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Rolex market develops over the next 12 months, I think a return to sanity is likely. Take the ‘quick profit’ aspect out of the equation and I think we’ll see the ADs windows filling up again. This won’t apply to all models but I suspect the OP and Datejusts will be far easier to get. Wether an OP is worth the wrong side of £5k is debatable when the profit potential is removed, it’s a lot of money for a simple steel watch.

[M4tt]

Sorry but saying expensive watches aren't for telling the time is stupid. Genuinely stupid.

That's like saying expensive cars aren't for driving.

How about 'that telling the time has ceased being their primary function, having been eclipsed by other, more symbolic, functions'?

Most of the other justifications for expensive watches look silly when one can pick up stuff just as interesting, reliable and so on for tens of pounds on ebay. A careful exploration of the reasons for buying madly expensive watches doesn't leave much that cannot be achieved elsewhere for less.

Conspicuous consumption and resale are the only ones unique to expensive modern watches as far as I can see.

- - - Updated - - -

Conspicuous consumption Snap!

[Montello]

Most of the other justifications for expensive watches look silly when one can pick up stuff just as interesting, reliable and so on for tens of pounds on ebay. A careful exploration of the reasons for buying madly expensive watches doesn't leave much that cannot be achieved elsewhere for less.

That logic can be applied to any item; no one buys anything based entirely on it's utility; if everyone bought on utility there would be no brands in on the planet ...

[M4tt]

That logic can be applied to any item; no one buys anything based entirely on it's utility; if everyone bought on utility there would be no brands in on the planet ...

Of course there would, but they would build their reputations upon delivering that utility. However, I'm not disagreeing, but my argument was about watches and the fact that the vast majority of Good Things people claim are their reason for buying stupidly expensive watches can be found for a pittance in older watches on Ebay. And yes, personally, if I don't need to buy new in anything then I will not.

[Passenger]

hahaha ´conspicuous consumption´ applies just as well to paying, was it 20 or 30 quid for a short stack of pancakes...ah Wileey, you´re good value, a good sport fella.

[Montello]

Of course there would, but they would build their reputations upon delivering that utility. However, I'm not disagreeing, but my argument was about watches and the fact that the vast majority of Good Things people claim are their reason for buying stupidly expensive watches can be found for a pittance in older watches on Ebay. And yes, personally, if I don't need to buy new in anything then I will not.

Ah well ... then we get into a different area ... when people claim they are buying something for reasons A, B & C when really subconsciously (or not) it is actually X, Y & Z ...

Anything other than a F91w or cheap Timex is a buying more than the utility of telling the time ...

[wileeeeeey]

You're both flat wrong and really coming at this from a position of ignorance.

What's next, £5m houses aren't for living in? Private jets aren't for flying? Maybe expensive boots aren't for walking?

It becomes "true" at a point but the point is relative so will be different for everyone. You can buy a Honda Civic for more than a Mercedes A Class or even a Seiko for more than a Rolex (SNR031 Vs OP41). Which one is conspicuous consumption and which is just an enthusiastic collector?

[Montello]

You're both flat wrong and really coming at this from a position of ignorance.

Apologies for my ignorance ... I'll skulk off ...

[M4tt]

Ah well ... then we get into a different area ... when people claim they are buying something for reasons A, B & C when really subconsciously (or not) it is actually X, Y & Z ...

Anything other than a F91w or cheap Timex is a buying more than the utility of telling the time ...

I obviously wasn't clear. Quite apart from not believing in the subconscious as I've never seen a mental state that wasn't either conscious or not conscious (which is another discussion) I'm quite certain that folks buy watches for a host of reasons, from the history to the engineering to the aesthetic. However, when someone's collection is made up entirely of recent expensive watches that are all pretty similar and perhaps a very expensive vintage classic or military watch that has been pimped relentlessly on Hodinkee then I think they are indeed telling me something about their internal processes, if not their external justifications.

If someone loves history, I'd expect a range of historically significant watches. If someone likes good design I'd expect a range of examples of good design and so on.

But when two minutes on Ebay to prove my point, can net something like this for £20:



This clearly ticks most boxes - a military watch from the foundation of India, from Favre Leuba, one of the oldest manufactures in Switzerland, in a thoroughly waterproof Borgel case similar to one of the Borgel cases used by Patek and with an excellent FL101 movement. All it needs is a new crystal, a service and a polish and it's ready to take on anything anywhere. If people were interested in what they say they are then this would be a damned sight more than that.

[walkerwek1958]

If we go back far enough to the 1950s and 60s there was justification in buying the more expensive items, they performed better in a tangible sense than their cheaper counterparts and the advantages were easier to justify. Brands became established on the basis of what they provided, a Rolex or Omega would generally be a better timekeeper and provide a level of longevity that the lesser brands couldn't match. A watch that ran to within 2 or 3 secs/day was worth having back in the days when the only accurate time source was the 12 o clock pips on the radio! Same with cars, in the early 60s a Mk11 Jaguar could get to 60 in 8.5 secs and do 120, at a time when most cars struggled to get to 60 in 20secs and were flat out at 80mph. The advantages of the expensive watches and cars really were tangible.

Fast forward to today, all cars go fairly quickly and you don't need to spend much to get a car that's plenty fast enough, buying the insanely quick cars at great expense doesn`t provide the tangible benefit that the Mk11 Jag did in the early 60s. As for the watches, the mechanical timepiece has been an anachronism since the late 70s when quartz models became affordable and cheap.

So where does that leave us, why pay over £5K for a basic Rolex or big money for a BMW M when the alternatives will fully meet the criteria of doing the job well? Yes, the watch tells the time and the car gets you to work and back, but there's no rational argument to justify either. The tangible benefit argument ceases to be valid and that happened a long time ago, the increase in watch prices over the past 12 years merely serves to amplify the futility. I was happy to go along with the watch thing when a decent used Rolex could be had for under £2K, I was happy to own and justify these watches circa 2010, nowadays I can`t and I`d feel a bit silly walking around with a £10K watch on my wrist, I certainly wouldn't get a warm feeling from it. Likewise a £70+K motor on the drive, it simply has no appeal and I don`t see how either the watch or the car confer an impression of good taste any longer, some folks may be impressed but a lot more would think 'what a knob'.

65 today, maybe I`ve just grown out of it all.

Edit: Just seem Matt's latest post.......I reckon he's got Yorkshire genes after all!

[M4tt]

You're both flat wrong and really coming at this from a position of ignorance.

What's next, £5m houses aren't for living in? Private jets aren't for flying? Maybe expensive boots aren't for walking?

It becomes "true" at a point but the point is relative so will be different for everyone. You can buy a Honda Civic for more than a Mercedes A Class or even a Seiko for more than a Rolex (SNR031 Vs OP41). Which one is conspicuous consumption and which is just an enthusiastic collector?

I think the point was that the primary functions change as the price increases. A 5m house needs a staff and costs a small fortune to maintain, so yes, it's marginal utility qua housing is fairly minimal. A private jet is about privacy, convenience way before it's about flying. Old boots, who knows?

However, in stating we are flat wrong and ignorant, I suspect you have oversold.

[number2]

If we go back far enough to the 1950s and 60s there was justification in buying the more expensive items, they performed better in a tangible sense than their cheaper counterparts and the advantages were easier to justify. Brands became established on the basis of what they provided, a Rolex or Omega would generally be a better timekeeper and provide a level of longevity that the lesser brands couldn't match. A watch that ran to within 2 or 3 secs/day was worth having back in the days when the only accurate time source was the 12 o clock pips on the radio! Same with cars, in the early 60s a Mk11 Jaguar could get to 60 in 8.5 secs and do 120, at a time when most cars struggled to get to 60 in 20secs and were flat out at 80mph. The advantages of the expensive watches and cars really were tangible.

Fast forward to today, all cars go fairly quickly and you don't need to spend much to get a car that's plenty fast enough, buying the insanely quick cars at great expense doesn`t provide the tangible benefit that the Mk11 Jag did in the early 60s. As for the watches, the mechanical timepiece has been an anachronism since the late 70s when quartz models became affordable and cheap.

So where does that leave us, why pay over £5K for a basic Rolex or big money for a BMW M when the alternatives will fully meet the criteria of doing the job well? Yes, the watch tells the time and the car gets you to work and back, but there's no rational argument to justify either. The tangible benefit argument ceases to be valid and that happened a long time ago, the increase in watch prices over the past 12 years merely serves to amplify the futility. I was happy to go along with the watch thing when a decent used Rolex could be had for under £2K, I was happy to own and justify these watches circa 2010, nowadays I can`t and I`d feel a bit silly walking around with a £10K watch on my wrist, I certainly wouldn't get a warm feeling from it. Likewise a £70+K motor on the drive, it simply has no appeal and I don`t see how either the watch or the car confer an impression of good taste any longer, some folks may be impressed but a lot more would think 'what a knob'.

65 today, maybe I`ve just grown out of it all.

Edit: Just seem Matt's latest post.......I reckon he's got Yorkshire genes after all!

You echo my thoughts, well put.

[M4tt]

Just seem Matt's latest post.......I reckon he's got Yorkshire genes after all!

Eee, there's trouble at pit...

I do agree and I have a friend who lived in Holmfirth for a while, but I'm not a fan of pigeon and whippet pie.

The bottom line is that:

https://rarest.org/stuff/expensive-boots

Once you take something beyond what is necessary to the point that it becomes a peacocks tail, then one has to ask why. And the answer is inevitably that the original function isn't what matters most any more.

Either way, I have work to do, so enjoy all.

[Passenger]

If we go back far enough to the 1950s and 60s there was justification in buying the more expensive items, they performed better in a tangible sense than their cheaper counterparts and the advantages were easier to justify. Brands became established on the basis of what they provided, a Rolex or Omega would generally be a better timekeeper and provide a level of longevity that the lesser brands couldn't match. A watch that ran to within 2 or 3 secs/day was worth having back in the days when the only accurate time source was the 12 o clock pips on the radio! Same with cars, in the early 60s a Mk11 Jaguar could get to 60 in 8.5 secs and do 120, at a time when most cars struggled to get to 60 in 20secs and were flat out at 80mph. The advantages of the expensive watches and cars really were tangible.

Fast forward to today, all cars go fairly quickly and you don't need to spend much to get a car that's plenty fast enough, buying the insanely quick cars at great expense doesn`t provide the tangible benefit that the Mk11 Jag did in the early 60s. As for the watches, the mechanical timepiece has been an anachronism since the late 70s when quartz models became affordable and cheap.

So where does that leave us, why pay over £5K for a basic Rolex or big money for a BMW M when the alternatives will fully meet the criteria of doing the job well? Yes, the watch tells the time and the car gets you to work and back, but there's no rational argument to justify either. The tangible benefit argument ceases to be valid and that happened a long time ago, the increase in watch prices over the past 12 years merely serves to amplify the futility. I was happy to go along with the watch thing when a decent used Rolex could be had for under £2K, I was happy to own and justify these watches circa 2010, nowadays I can`t and I`d feel a bit silly walking around with a £10K watch on my wrist, I certainly wouldn't get a warm feeling from it. Likewise a £70+K motor on the drive, it simply has no appeal and I don`t see how either the watch or the car confer an impression of good taste any longer, some folks may be impressed but a lot more would think 'what a knob'.

65 today, maybe I`ve just grown out of it all.

Edit: Just seem Matt's latest post.......I reckon he's got Yorkshire genes after all!

Insightful post.

[wileeeeeey]

I think the point was that the primary functions change as the price increases. A 5m house needs a staff and costs a small fortune to maintain, so yes, it's marginal utility qua housing is fairly minimal. A private jet is about privacy, convenience way before it's about flying. Old boots, who knows?

However, in stating we are flat wrong and ignorant, I suspect you have oversold.

Context is everything. £5m in central London gets you a house around the same size as mine and I certainly don't have staff or pay a small fortune to maintain it. Repointing however will absolutely batter me in a few years and won't be fun. It would be true for £5m where I live but it isn't true for £5m everywhere. For context I live in what is essentially a 4 bed semi, so not a palace.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/122896991

I would see a Jacob & Co Astronomia or Bugatti Veyron as beyond watches/cars and straight into conspicuous consumption and showing off. I think they're both absolutely ugly and stupid, but I know I'm wrong in the grand scheme of things. It's true for me but that doesn't make it true.

[Passenger]

Marketing and ´chasing IT´ is now everything...imo the wrong things but ymmv, speaking generally, no one specifically.

[verv]

How about 'that telling the time has ceased being their primary function, having been eclipsed by other, more symbolic, functions'?

Most of the other justifications for expensive watches look silly when one can pick up stuff just as interesting, reliable and so on for tens of pounds on ebay. A careful exploration of the reasons for buying madly expensive watches doesn't leave much that cannot be achieved elsewhere for less.

Conspicuous consumption and resale are the only ones unique to expensive modern watches as far as I can see.

I would posit that not all consumption is conspicuous.

Yes, nobody needs anything more than a sub ten quid watch, and even that is not a necessity but a desire.

If life was solely about servicing basic functional need then TZ wouldn't exist.
The people buying 10 quid watches from eBay are no better or worse than those buying 10k watches as none of it is through necessity and all of it is about leisure/obsession.

[M4tt]

Context is everything. £5m in central London gets you a house around the same size as mine and I certainly don't have staff or pay a small fortune to maintain it. Repointing however will absolutely batter me in a few years and won't be fun. It would be true for £5m where I live but it isn't true for £5m everywhere. For context I live in what is essentially a 4 bed semi, so not a palace.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/122896991

I would see a Jacob & Co Astronomia or Bugatti Veyron as beyond watches/cars and straight into conspicuous consumption and showing off. I think they're both absolutely ugly and stupid, but I know I'm wrong in the grand scheme of things. It's true for me but that doesn't make it true.

So what you are saying is that for 5m the primary function is living in that location. And why would someone want to do that when it's so very expensive.

anyone is clear about the extremes, but Veblen demonstrated that for most, it's in the subtle detail that little peacock tails grow.

[M4tt]

I would posit that not all consumption is conspicuous.

Yes, nobody needs anything more than a sub ten quid watch, and even that is not a necessity but a desire.

If life was solely about servicing basic functional need then TZ wouldn't exist.
The people buying 10 quid watches from eBay are no better or worse than those buying 10k watches as none of it is through necessity and all of it is about leisure/obsession.

I wasn't arguing that it was. I was arguing that there are a whole load of functions beyond merely telling the time and that most rationalisations bear heavy on those: design, engineering aesthetics, history and so on. My point was that if, for most, those were true then they'd have very different collections that reflected that.

When I buy a ten quid watch I'm looking for the functions that matter to me. Clearly conspicuous consumption is not one of them. No one is arguing that people buy things for more than their primary purpose, some are trying to pretend that their primary purposes are not conspicuous consumption or some other peacock tail.

[verv]

I see your broad point but dont necessarily agree that peacocking is a primary motivator, particularly not for people on TZ.
Insta - more likely.

[walkerwek1958]

I like the ‘peacocks tail’ analogy!

My plumage (and Rolex collection) grew steadily until a serious bout of ill- health in 2014 clipped my wings (and tailfeathers), causing a serious recalibration of values aided and abetted by advancing years. The trinkets seem far less relevant thesedays, I’ll settle for staying healthy and keeping the wolf from the door.

Apart from one Datejust the Rolexes are gone and my enthusiasm is firmly channelled into vintage Omegas which don’t owe me much and I can fix myself.

Conspicuous consumption/Veblen or whatever you term it, I’m convinced it’s something most people grow out of.........eventually. I’m still enthusiastic about watches but my focus has definitely changed, my collectors head has gone full circle to where it was 20+ years ago!

[wileeeeeey]

So what you are saying is that for 5m the primary function is living in that location. And why would someone want to do that when it's so very expensive.

anyone is clear about the extremes, but Veblen demonstrated that for most, it's in the subtle detail that little peacock tails grow.

I'm proving the point that £5m on a house doesn't necessarily mean you need a staff and it costs a fortune to run. It's extreme in most parts of the country, but not necessarily in London. All I've done is shoot down your point. You're now attempting to move the goal posts to suit a new position while presenting it as the original position.

There will be people who own Pateks which won't be Veblen goods and there will be people with a quartz tag bought to flaunt on social media. Same is true with houses, cars, anything in life.

Just because something costs a lot it doesn't mean it's outside of its primary purpose and only bought to show off - the inverse is also true.

[wileeeeeey]

Conspicuous consumption/Veblen or whatever you term it, I’m convinced it’s something most people grow out of.........eventually. I’m still enthusiastic about watches but my focus has definitely changed, my collectors head has gone full circle to where it was 20+ years ago!

I agree. Most things and people come full circle. We are no exception to this.

You start with something modest and build up, get caught in excitement or hype, and one day wake up and wonder what the hell happened and when did you get so desensitised to the money.

I dropped a watch into service yesterday and was just staring at it wondering what it would mean I'd I sold and put it into my mortgage. Usually whatever you overpay into a mortgage vaguely doubles and I worked out how many months that overpayment would remove and it really does make you think.

[M4tt]

I'm proving the point that £5m on a house doesn't necessarily mean you need a staff and it costs a fortune to run. It's extreme in most parts of the country, but not necessarily in London.

I'm pretty sure that I accepted your point. However, to return to the point I was making:

I think the point was that the primary functions change as the price increases. A 5m house needs a staff and costs a small fortune to maintain, so yes, it's marginal utility qua housing is fairly minimal.

All I've done is shoot down your point. You're now attempting to move the goal posts to suit a new position while presenting it as the original position.

So you clearly haven't 'shot down my point' as I was absolutely explicit about what my point was: "that the primary functions change as the price increases". You have mistaken a subsidiary supporting argument for my point even though I explicitly stated my point. When you made a case against the supporting argument, I conceded that one argument didn't work and replaced it with another which did: that the money is buying location, not housing and thus that the location is now the primary function.

There will be people who own Pateks which won't be Veblen goods and there will be people with a quartz tag bought to flaunt on social media. Same is true with houses, cars, anything in life.

I agree that there are always going to be exceptions, but as in all things they are called exceptions because they are exceptional.

Just because something costs a lot it doesn't mean it's outside of its primary purpose and only bought to show off - the inverse is also true.

True, but it makes it infinitely more likely and, as I have argued twice here, in those exceptional cases, you would expect to see a collection with equality across other watches that have lovely cases, or exceptional movements or historical significance or whatever and it's that which you very rarely see anywhere. What you usually see is what you would expect if the primary purpose was conspicuous consumption - a collection of popular, expensive and exclusive watches.

While I'm sure your Zakah is up to date and it's your money to spend as you will, can you show me your cheap, unknown and common, but fantastic watches? Come on, don't shirk...

[wileeeeeey]

Here we go, playing the ball?

This is my top 5 from 2022. Hopefully there are some peasant watches to give me some humble credibility from you and the wider congregation.

I bought a Seiko Prospex from Subdial yesterday for £2.3k. Is that another Veblen good? I also bought a King Turtle about 2-3 weeks ago from SC. Is that cheap enough, or would someone with only an FW91 call it Veblen?

Let me know which watches I need to buy for you to see my point/s as valid. I'll add them to the Ocado list.

[MacDeath]

Wouldn't be much fun here if everyone bought Casio or Christopher Ward now would it?

[hilly10]

I will stick to my 1987 16800 Sub prices are insane now

[M4tt]

Here we go, playing the ball?

This is my top 5 from 2022. Hopefully there are some peasant watches to give me some humble credibility from you and the wider congregation.

I bought a Seiko Prospex from Subdial yesterday for £2.3k. Is that another Veblen good? I also bought a King Turtle about 2-3 weeks ago from SC. Is that cheap enough, or would someone with only an FW91 call it Veblen?

Let me know which watches I need to buy for you to see my point/s as valid. I'll add them to the Ocado list.

You are quite right, as I'm always complaining when others do it, I really shouldn't even give the impression of doing it. My apologies. However, it wasn't any part of my argument and I was extending from the general point of people's collections sometimes being somewhat revealing. I should have resisted the temptation and you are quite right to pull me up on it.

[M4tt]

Wouldn't be much fun here if everyone bought Casio or Christopher Ward now would it?

No, but it might be fun if a few more people bought Helvetia or Taubert.

[Stonewood]

I thought Rolex would have increased prices more than they did considering the grey market prices!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacDeath]

No, but it might be fun if a few more people bought Helvetia or Taubert.

Can't see anything to learn from either of them. Plenty own vintage watches, but the audience isn't here it seems, so other forums are probably best for that sort of stuff.

[wileeeeeey]

You are quite right, as I'm always complaining when others do it, I really shouldn't even give the impression of doing it. My apologies. However, it wasn't any part of my argument and I was extending from the general point of people's collections sometimes being somewhat revealing. I should have resisted the temptation and you are quite right to pull me up on it.

No worries and apologies for making the point quite aggressively, I thought this was the BP.

[jukeboxs]

...
If life was solely about not discussing needless topics in an aggressive, confrontational and repetitive manner servicing basic functional need then TZ wouldn't exist.
...

^ As I read it.


But, Holy Cow Batman, what this thread has taught me is that:
[1] I am not a WIS, not even a wis - I don't track my daily wearers (I hardly even notice what I'm wearing).
[2] Who the feck displays a metal model of a dog in the middle of their landing / bottom of the stairs?! I mean, doesn't £5m bring with it some common sense / taste ?!

[M4tt]

Can't see anything to learn from either of them. Plenty own vintage watches, but the audience isn't here it seems, so other forums are probably best for that sort of stuff.

Oh the audience is here all right. In my experience, there's more horological (and pretty well any other kind) knowledge sitting on the sidelines gently rolling their eyes and not bothering to replay an argument, discussion or whatever they have had and seen a dozen times already.

Either way, my point wasn't about vintage per se, it was about what people say they are looking for in a watch and the various ways they could get it if that was what they really wanted.

And you say there's nothing to learn about Taubert. Who do you think Rolex copied... Twice.

[blackal]

Has anyone mentioned "veblen" yet?

[Kairos]

Oh good. My 1996 submariner goes up a bit more then!

[TROYBOY79]

no one can buy one from ADs so the increase means little I suppose

[Haywood_Milton]

no one can buy one from ADs so the increase means little I suppose

Increasingly they can indeed buy them.

[Passenger]

Here we go, playing the ball?

This is my top 5 from 2022. Hopefully there are some peasant watches to give me some humble credibility from you and the wider congregation.

I bought a Seiko Prospex from Subdial yesterday for £2.3k. Is that another Veblen good? I also bought a King Turtle about 2-3 weeks ago from SC. Is that cheap enough, or would someone with only an FW91 call it Veblen?

Let me know which watches I need to buy for you to see my point/s as valid. I'll add them to the Ocado list.

Is this as sad as watching netflix in ya parked Tesla, or sadder?

[wileeeeeey]

Is this as sad as watching netflix in ya parked Tesla, or sadder?

Someone did it in 2021 so I copied it for 2022. Not a bad way to track comings and goings and monitor the relegation zone. We're all sad in some way or other, you're neighbours with Cilla and Mick P ha!

[MacDeath]

This 'influx' of watches mentioned to be coming to AD's and out to the lists will still feed the grey dealers for some time yet whilst there's a profit to be made. Prices will fall as supply increases, but just don't see anyone being able to buy a (say) 126610LV without a long wait or paying over retail, certainly this year anyway.

All the better if we could, just can't see it.

[Passenger]

Someone did it in 2021 so I copied it for 2022. Not a bad way to track comings and goings and monitor the relegation zone. We're all sad in some way or other, you're neighbours with Cilla and Mick P ha!

HAHA True that, we just had 2nd Christmas- 3 Kings, and yet another to come this weekend... Happy new Year Wileey.