[awat]

As someone who has loved mechanical watches <insert other qualitative hobbies I’m sure> for years and seen them become a financial product over the last decade or so. I’m not convinced making art a financial product is a net positive.

[fermienrico]

I think the difference is that traditional art, to which I mean paintings, are impossible to recreate exactly. Especially, painters like Pollack and Bacon who edited their work using chance/luck as a tool. You can’t do that with watches. Paintings serve as a unique visual representation or a token that is extremetely effective as a financial instrument. Paintings will always be on the lead when it comes to a financial product.

Watches, even custom ones, serve a different purpose. They rarely show up on Christie’s or Sotheby’s. Instead, they serve as a communication device. I am, possibly incorrectly, conspiring that this is the reason for the death of ultra high end pocket watches. They’re just not as visible.

[awat]

Good point, I agree on the uniqueness of traditional art being a big factor In it’s ability to be used as an asset.

Watches are pretty common these days at the big auction houses and most if not all have departments specializing in them now. Selling to many buyers who are presumably speculators with little intention to no intention to wear the watch.

https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/sothebys-beefs-u...