First Thoughts: Piaget Polo 79
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 08. 2024
- This video goes over my first thoughts on the Piaget Polo 79, reference GOA4950.
All images used under Fair Use
Join the 99¢ Club at:
/ @watcheswithdennis
Participate on the Watches with Dennis Discord at: / discord
#watchcollecting #piaget
It's an original design that looks beautiful, and the watch world *needs* more great original designs.
Its a specific watch for a specific buyer. I dont think comparisons to mass produced gold watches, like Rolex DJ, are right. The 222 as you mentioned are more in line...The Piaget buyer enjoys a unique aesthetic (and wallet) and this watch will appeal to them. It is unlikely to bring new buyers to Piaget...but I dont think that was the intent. This watch is, brining them lots of attention - which will be very good for them. They do have great watches in their porfolio.
Recently had a hands on with this piece and i gotta say its really stunning in the flesh.
But the price point is hard to swallow
It is an interesting look but I still favor the 222 (no better price-wise sadly).
This is an interesting release, these super thin expensive quartz watches were the first Swiss attempt to counter the quartz crisis and from what I understand they were successful for a few years. However, the style went out of fashion quickly and the mechanical luxury watches survived (Royal Oak/Rolex). I think it is a clever idea substituting a slim mechanical movement for the original quartz and I think this will appeal to different collectors who would would never touch quartz. The question is, is the world ready for a revival of the super slim gold watch? Personally, I never liked the look at the time, but maybe in a couple of years we'll see Rolex release a modern King Midas?
You are right. Although they would be reluctant to admit it now, most of the up-market brands were quick to adopt quartz. At the time, the wisdom suggested that mechanical watchmaking had all but become extinct. For me at least, a modern King Midas would be really cool. Concord made some incredible models at the time. As you state, these styles quickly went out of fashion. But still, I like that tacky kind of kitsch.
@@obesetuna3164 Although I'm not sure I could pull off the King Midas myself, they do have a very evocative style of that time. When sun tans, chest hair, moustaches and medallions are back in, they'll be back, no doubt about it 👍
LOL. Walking around Poundland with a King Midas on my wrist Underhay. I could just imagine.@@dunderhay9169
Interesting, I hadn't heard about where the original versions fit in the luxury realm (though judging from the bit of commercial I included from Piaget it does make sense). I'm just not sure where it is fitting in price-wise (aside from my comparison, and I do wonder if they saw the surge of interest in the new 222 and decided to pull a similar move). I agree going mechanical was very smart, and it is a unique look so that helps. But it isn't particularly thin. Not to say it *isn't* thin (it's thinner than the 222, by 0.5 mm), but Breguet's 38 mm 5157 is only 5.4 mm thick and is also automatic. It's also only $19,800. Granted, the 5157 comes on a strap (the dial doesn't look gold but it is a silvered gold dial, so aside from the bracelet the only real lack of gold difference would be the hands which isn't much), but obviously if we double the price to pretend we could get a gold bracelet it's still closer to $40,000 than it is to over $70,000.
So, for me the problem Piaget has is the watch isn't "worth" the gold. The movement isn't newly created. So, I think they think their competition is the VC 222 (which you could ask similar questions of, absolutely; the difference being as I noted in the video that the vintage VC 222s are very expensive to get [EDIT: some are, some are smaller and quartz and those seem to be around the old Piaget pricing], not just regular expensive). And I am guessing, iconic as this Piaget look is, they are wrong.
I think Rolex keeps the King Midas look in the dustbin of history though regardless of how this does!
@@WatcheswithDennis Everything you say makes perfect sense to me Dennis, but as Tuna said in another post, I think economic sense and value just doesn't seem to apply to these $70,000 watches, as you say you could buy more gold than you'd want to carry in a rucksack for that money!
So excellent
I must admit Dennis. I am totally in love with the original Polo, and all be it at a more modest price point, have a small collection of dress watches from the same period. Although Piaget are famous for their very thin movements, as you stated, the original vintage quartz model would actually make more economic sense. However, for those lucky few who find themselves in a position to pull the trigger on a $70000 plus gold watch, is economic sense still a thing?
Perhaps not, that's the joy of watches! ...or the curse. If I loved the case more I would want to try on a vintage. But the new piece at this price I would rather make the illogical buy on a 222. Which equally makes little sense.
Dennis. I actually prefer this design over the 222. But would/could I rinse my bank account to buy either of them for the asking price? Like the rest of us peasants, obviously not. @@WatcheswithDennis
@@obesetuna3164 guess you'll just have to settle for that 36mm Day-Date option!
Lol Dennis. Not that I need yet another watch. But on the big scale of things, there are plenty of choices.@@WatcheswithDennis
I first saw the original Piaget Polo on a colleagues wrist in about 1982 and although it was the rectangular one I loved it. It was quite elegant. However, the 79,000 price tag now is too steep
I have looked at some of the rectangles now and think I enjoy that a bit more. Quirky.
@@WatcheswithDenniswhat about a steel watch for over 100K 😉 I am not saying that tis cheap, not at all. But in a world that we are living in where rubber strap cartoon watches of RM are above the 250K, is a gold watch for. 70K a gift.
@@kingxerxes3139 it is all relative. The mark-up on gold watches has, at least for a long time now, been well in excess of just the material cost difference. Not sure we are quite ready for a steel watch at 70k but we might be getting closer. Holy Trinity steel sports watches devoid of advanced complications retail over 30k in steel so almost halfway there!
But ultimately it comes down to if the buyer sees the value.
@@WatcheswithDennis so far so good, but….. people know nothing about what is worth, they only know the price. There is a difference between what the price is and what really is worth 😉
1. It's 80k
2. My saturation point of seeing this whole integrated bracelet sports-watch craze is long past, and this looks like a 222 ripoff
3. Uses an ETAchron regulator
4. It's 80k
But what about the part of it being 80k? ;)
Do you think we are nearing the end of integrated bracelet releases? I suspect not but with there being like 20 different PRX SKUs perhaps people are satiated. I wonder what would replace it though...
@@WatcheswithDennis That's a great question, I have noticed an upswing in interest in tailored clothing amongst the younger generation, but I doubt dress watches will ever be as mainstream as they once were.
Did I mention it's 80k?!?!
Nothing wrong with etachron, one of the most reliable and accurate ways of adjusting a watch, far more shock resistant than using variable inertia bolts or weights for example
A few thoughts I had... this makes the 38mm Vacheron Traditionnelle in gold look like a bargain. Better movement, nicer dial, more sophisticated design, better brand, for way less money. Also, the high cost for the full gold bracelet on the Polo has to be weighed against the risk of becoming dated and undesirable. A strap can be changed and seems much more timeless. So I see the Polo as appealing to the fashion buyer, not watch enthusiast. Secondly, are designers out of ideas, or do Swiss brand mangers not allow original thoughts? So many re-editions or re-interpretations should be seen as looking in the review mirror. Who is looking forward? Something that comes to mind when i see a so called icon of design brought back is "gosh, this brand has done nothing in 40-50 years, why is it supposed to be desirable today? JLC reverso has stayed more relevant, is better made, and did polo first.
I think a lot of the Swiss manufacturers are extremely conservative when it comes to design. And they see companies (e.g., Tudor and Longines) having so much success (popularity) with vintage re-issues so I think everyone is farming that. That's why, even though I've read no confirmation, based off look (all gold) and styling (70s) and price ($70k+) I feel like Piaget saw the VC 222 re-issue and said "why not us?"
Some do experiment, though it tends to be smaller brands. H. Moser seems to take a lot of chances (or at least I seem to hate as many things they do as I love which to me suggests design experimentation). Oris also seems to be taking some chances too. But both those brands are hardly companies someone discusses in their first breath of Swiss manufacturers.
I’d rather have 2 dollars and a Casio
LOL he compared a Haute Horology watch to a day date with it's unfinished movement. Then sayd "you can get a day date" hahaahah Sure walk into a rolex boutique and ask for a platinum day date with light blue dial. You will be laughed at.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think this is one of the ugliest watches I've seen in a while. Because of the brand they'll sell, albeit poorly and then be "worth" a fortune in 10 years because of the limited numbers in circulation. Piaget has had some interesting designs but this one missed the mark
I see where you are coming from. It is very "70s" and personally some of those designs I like and some I hate. This I find decent but not something I would likely wear. I dislike the Nautilus look. I really like the 222. I also like Zenith's A385. But I think all are polarizing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!