Unlimited limited editions

        Its very common among watch companies to introduce limited edition watches. Does limited editions has any value other than so called exclusivity? Pls ommit real valued watches like les masque collection that are more than a watch.

        On which parameters company decides to make series as limited edition? Just to keep it exclusive or there are anything more tahn exclusivity. eg many of limited edition pens produced by Mont Blanc company has some relevance with whom that pen is dedicated.

great question. Christial Selmoni head of product development replied
03/02/2008 - 22:26

on this same question recently and according to him limited editions are based on certain criteria:

- limitation of the movement: for example the skeleton platinum minute repeater, only 15 movements were available so only 15 pieces were made

- test pieces: often made for specific markets where the brand tests specific designs of which certain elements will be used in regular production

- exclusivity: a decision to keep certain models exclusive and purposely limit production, for example the Excellence Platine collection

A question I often ask myself. I read somewhere that Swatch (the watch
03/02/2008 - 23:26

was the 1st to use limited editions. Anyone know if its true?

You're right, Swatch is generally considered as being the brand that
03/03/2008 - 12:18

launched the 1st limited edition watch, meaning it was sold at the very begining with the indication that only a certain number would be produced.

This is limited !
03/02/2008 - 23:37

Number one of one

Special designed for one customer 1931.

Platinum pocket watch with black enamel on the sides, Art Deco.



Re: This is limited !
03/03/2008 - 02:09

maybe too limited!

Re: This is limited !
03/03/2008 - 04:07

Hi Doc, you're killin' me with that breathtaking "Pocket"!

If it were mine, I'd wear it on a Platinum chain around my neck.

Ok, back to the question of Limited Editions, more valuable or special?

My understanding is "Limited Production" can be more meaningful.

Please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm mistaken. Best, Miki

Ahhhh, the "Crown Jewel"... (nt)
03/05/2008 - 15:45

30 pieces.
03/03/2008 - 09:17

Someone once said 30 pieces.

Can't remember who.

But worth knowing, is that VC as late as in the beginning of the 50's,

never made more than 24 pieces of any model


Re: 30 pieces.
03/03/2008 - 16:11

How about this one?  I thought you might like this one Doc, since you are into Art Deco.  Delivered in 1927, featured on Antiquorum.

I prefer this one :-)
03/03/2008 - 16:50

Also Verger from the same time, but this is more heavy,

don't you think so too ?



This one should make you happy
03/03/2008 - 17:01

scans courtesy of Paul Boutros

Nice to see that Paul is in the game :-)
03/03/2008 - 19:44

Congrats Paul,

every real man should at least some Verger's


Re: I prefer this one :-)
03/03/2008 - 17:08

Finally gave up a complete look at this one...

WOW-WOW-WOW! Best, Miki

You're a true VC source of knowledge, Doc - thanks! nt
03/03/2008 - 16:16

The letter to the AD's 1950 !
03/03/2008 - 16:53

There you have it Radek

Got to read a lot, but somewhere you will find the true stories



Great indications of prices!!!
03/03/2008 - 22:53

And now for some attempts at equivalent prices for today:

$425 in 1950 is about $3600 in 2006 (using consumer price index). Using nominal GDP per capita as indicator $9700, GDP deflator ($3000), value of consumer bundle ($5500), unskilled wage ($5735) and relative share of GDP ($19000).

Basically, if you are actually trying to compare for amount of income used to buy something that cost $425, then $9700 is a better number.

$550 in 1950 is about $4600 in 2006 (CPI, GDP per capita is $12500, and for the other indicators: $3900, $7100, $7400, $24700).

Using CPI is not very good as it does not take into account changes in wages and wage distributions over the period.

The comparison I find useful is the nominal GDP per capita indicator. Here is why: it is better to compare what this item would cost someone of your income in 1950.

Let's take someone earning $200,000 net per annum nowadays (for no particular reason, but I think it is around the threshold for top 97 or 98% earners). In 1950, this would represent $8780 annual wage. Wage distribution has changed a lot since 1950, with huge gains for higher earners and huge losses for lower earners: I don't know what percentile someone earning $8780 per year would be in (in 1950).

A $425 watch would represent 4.84% of his annual income. For someone in 2006 earning $200,000, 4.84% of his income is $9680. And yes, this is basically the nominal GDP per capita number seen above. 

For luxury items, I think the GDP per capita indicator seems to represent more how much a percentage of someone's equivalent salary would be paid to purchase the item. It really is almost impossible to compare things fairly anyway, so this whole exercise is a bit pointless... It depends on what questiosn you have

Anyway, I just found these things interesting a while back, and it is good to find more historical info on watch prices.

Thanks for the economics discussion
03/04/2008 - 18:46

I follow your logic Nico...it makes perfect sense!

Thanks Nico for the info! (nt)
03/05/2008 - 15:45

03/05/2008 - 15:48

that is even less than most of the Excellence Platine collection...

by getting a vintage VC, you are then assured to get an exclusive piece