3-Watch Thursday #21
Mildly less rushed than last week.
Morning Team,
Welcome to the 2nd instalment of 3-Watch Thursday for 2023.
In case you couldn’t tell, last week I was in a bit of a rush to get 3-Watch Thursday out. Fortunately, this week I’ve found a little more time to read and listen to watch media along with the chance to collect some thoughts and write them down.
So strap in, and away we go.
OT: The Podcast - Silas Walton (A Collected Man) on indies hype and what to watch out for
First off, apologies.
I keep recommending OT: The Podcast episodes but it has quickly become my favourite watch podcast to listen to. Felix and Andy have been smashing it for a long while now.
This episode from 2021 caught my interest as it features Silas Walton of ACM.
You’re probably well aware of ACM, but having never met or spoken to anyone who works there offered a great insight into the company's philosophy.
One of the most interesting aspects was the separation between ACM's retail and journal sides. They’re not entirely independent but work to the extent that if an article were to go out that looked like it might influence opinion on a piece being retailed, the watch has been delayed from going live.
The other part that seemed to resonate throughout was the mission of ACM to provide rare and exceptional pieces to market. This rings true almost a year and a half later with ACM having weathered the increased hype around indies and branched out further into collectables.
This was a super interesting listen and really puts into perspective the work that the team do at ACM continuing to provide both exceptional watches and content.
The Fourth Wheel, Issue 31
I’ve long been a fan of what Chris Hall is doing at TFW (heck 25 of you have subscribed through my mentions on Substack).
This week Chris wrote a piece about the Delugs cease-and-desist issued by Richmont in December. The filing relates to a patent infringement by Delugs over the patented Cartier Santos strap changing system.
Among other things, Chris offers his perspective on why Cartier enforced their patent, but one line early on caught my attention:
If you’re going to bother patenting a watch strap design, the only reason for doing so is exactly so you can stop third parties copying it.
This resonated with me for a while as I was stood at a bus stop reading it.
There’s a huge amount of truth in it, but let’s have a look at it from a slightly different perspective. Suppose we start with the question, what is the point in developing a new strap changing system?
At present the widely used system to attach watch straps is through the use of spring bars. Spring bars are good at what they do, but it’s possible to argue they can be difficult to use so there’s room for improvement in the technology.
Enter the quick release spring bar.
Easy to use, works in the same way as a traditional spring bar but without as significant a risk of damaging your watch.
So what’s the benefit of this Santos strap system?
While I’m sure the press of a button so release and change a strap is easier and that it is argued as the technical effect of this invention in the patent itself, to the average Cartier consumer this probably makes little difference in them purchasing the watch. The thing that really makes the difference, in my opinion, is the value of having ‘patented’ or ‘patent pending’ relating to your products.
If we look at another Richmont brand, IWC who sell themselves as being an innovative watch company particularly with respect to their uses of materials in their Pilot range, it appears pretty obvious in having a patented strap changing technology they can appear modern and innovative to prospective clients. Think of this like Apple every time they release an iPhone that has a minimal improvement over the last but convince people it will change their lives. The minimal gain in these patented technologies might have big benefits in marketing watches.
Returning to the Cartier Santos, this article on Europa Star mentions two patents pending for the bracelet system. If I was a non-watch person searching for a watch, knew nothing about the history of Cartier and came across this article I’d be interested.
I’ll admit I don’t have numbers to back any of this up and I’m not a patent lawyer (yet), but watch companies probably aren’t just patenting strap changing systems to sell more straps (though I’m sure this plays a factor).
[TL;DR]: Patents help to sell products.
As an aside, there’s another alternative view on this whole situation, though it would still result in Cartier and Richmont profiting: licence the patent.
Say hypothetically Richmont didn’t enforce this patent, but allowed third party strap makers the ability to license the technology. This would give consumers the chance to buy the straps they want along with Richmont keeping a finger in the proverbial pie.
Just a thought that popped into my head at the end of all this.
To finish, I don’t know who is right or wrong in all of this, I’m just sharing the things I thought whilst reading Chris’ newsletter last week.
Seven of The Best Affordable Vintage Watches To Consider Throughout 2023
Charlie Dunne is out here absolutely bossing 2023 already.
His article this week on ‘affordable vintage watches’ is a home run in my opinion.
Just remember one thing:
Condition. Condition. Condition.
Thanks Charlie for great read.
Also I never knew there were so many cool vintage Rolex pocket watches! You’ve just put me down a new rabbit hole.
That’s all from me this week!
Please share your thoughts below, particularly about the patented strap technologies.
Also, if anyone is heading to the Rowing Blazers event next week, feel free to drop me a line.
Owen :))