MC: I was going to pick a gem-set day-date, but I think I’m gonna go with the Killy. Okay. *reads catalog notes* Rolex. An exceedingly rare and well preserved 18k gold triple calendar chronograph wristwatch, made for the English market. Stop. Hold the phone.
RF: Ding, ding. I know why she picked it!
MC: Obviously I’m inclined to pick something that’s yellow gold. I think I have a particular affinity for this because of the Oyster case. You know, I go on and on about my Explorer, which is obviously not entirely similar but the oyster case is a classic. It’s perfect, the perfect Rolex thing that nobody else can do quite the same. And the blue accent in the outer track, this needs to be brought back. The blue accent and the yellow gold case is fire.
RF: I guess the English market aspect is just the English language day and date discs. Somewhat disappointing, I thought we were talking real GREAT Britain here.
MC: Okay. Talk to me about this watch.
RF: Not entirely about the watch although I do agree, it’s incredible – a yellow gold Killy is undeniable and this is one of the best known examples, condition is insane. But, what sticks out to me here are the market dynamics.
MC: Oh, market dynamics.
RF: Yeah give me a second here. This auction season, we have these large collectors selling off collections that were mainly acquired through major auctions. So, we have the recorded sales. This watch last sold at Phillips in 2018, a part of the Phillips & Blackbird auction.
MC: Shoutout Nick Biebuyck. Ok, how much did it sell for then?
RF: We’re in HK$ here so let me do math, not my strong suit. Just under $400k? So with the estimate this go around being 250-500 CHF, we’re firmly in that range. But more than pricing, it’s cool to see that previous sale called out in the Christie’s catalog, borrowing from the art department. The watch world could use some of those art market dynamics like stated chain of ownership provenance. It is healthy for the market in my opinion, substantiates a sale and the watch.
MC: Yeah, the provenance we hear about are original owner watches, most of the time.
RF: Right but as the watch collecting market matures we’re going to need more of this other kind of provenance. Saying this watch sold publicly here and here, this was the condition then, we can see how it’s different, and so on.
MC: You really find that interesting?
RF: Wow, the shade. I do! I think there’s something here to learn and the watch world could use more parallels with art.
MC: I’m going to stop you right there. Watches are not the same thing.
RF: Oh no, and they’ll never be the same. But the structures and tools that make a piece of art valuable could translate to watches.
MC: I think I see it the other way. A watch is very structured, these are finite structured things. Watch enthusiasts tend to like structure and logic, and a sentiment to hold onto. But art, notably abstract art is open to interpretation, it’s difficult to understand and therefore uncomfortable.
RF: I don’t necessarily mean the objects are all that similar or the way collectors appreciate art could translate. I see watches more as historical objects where art is finite. A Hockney, you could hang on your wall for 15 years. It would never change. Whereas this watch came up in 2019 and there’s more patina on the side of the case today in 2023.
MC: He’s doing the patina talk.
RF: Just saying, it’s changed. It’s a wearable object that changes over the years. Having a chain of ownership and a record of previous sales could actually be more important!
MC: Okay Okay fair. If I consider Elizabeth Taylor’s collection of Caftan’s art then I guess I can get on board.