Should watch brands cancel orders placed with the intention of immediately flipping them?
Zach BlassWatch flipping. The practice, depending on which side of the coin you are on, poses one of the biggest problems or opportunities within the watch space today. With watches increasingly being looked at as an investment opportunity, and financial figures such as Kevin O’Leary endorsing the notion that investing in watches is better than investing in gold, the audience for luxury wristwatches is extending past hardcore enthusiasts to opportunistic entrepreneurs looking to make money. Flipping as a practice is, of course, by no means exclusive to watches – sneakers, video game consoles, and more can repeatedly be seen being flipped.
Now, you might think only more expensive watches from brands like Rolex, Patek Philippe, and Audemars Piguet are ripe for flipping. But, we have seen these past few years that, with enough interest, less expensive watches have become a target for flipping as well. For example, the Swatch x Omega MoonSwatch continues to be found on platforms like eBay listed above their retail price. This prompted #watchfam to question, to this day, why Swatch refuses to sell the MoonSwatch online so that those who continue to be unlucky during their visits to local Swatch boutiques, or those who do not live near a Swatch boutique, would be able to purchase one at the retail price. There was also an inquiry if Swatch was trying to impede the efforts of flippers trying to purchase a MoonSwatch that would then be immediately sold after.
View this post on Instagram
This is why I find the apparent mixed response to the founder of Studio Underd0g Richard Benc’s decision to cancel and refund orders placed by individuals with explicit intentions of flipping them very interesting. He shared this news in an Instagram story post, with the message: “I’m passionate about getting watches on the wrists of those that love what I’m doing at Studio Underdog. I am aware that some people may simply see my brand as an opportunity to profit and have no interest in my approach to horology. I will continue to cancel any pre-orders that are listed for sale before having been being received, and will offer these watches to genuine customers.”
Shortly after Richard’s post, Andrew filmed a quick little interview on the subject with Richard for our and Studio Underd0g’s Instagram reels for further elaboration and to explore the stir his post had caused. Richard said: “Yeah [the post] caused a bit of a stir, a little bit of a drama. I’ve noticed a bunch of people trying to take advanatage of the sytem, trying to make a quick buck off a new product launch. So, I had noticed that a customer had placed a pre-order and had already listed it on eBay before they’ve even received the product. I refunded the order because it was clear that this person saw the brand as an opportunity to to to make a quick buck and it’s not great for me as a brand. It’s no good for me, but more importantly no good for enthusiasts. I want to get watches on people’s wrists that can enjoy them, you know. It’s a bit of fun, that’s what my brand is about. So, to have to go through that frustrating experience where people are having to pay a premium on eBay – that’s not what I want. That’s not what that’s not what anyone wants. So, yeah, I cancelled this chaps order. I’ll continue to do that and I’ll be able to then offer those orders that are cancelled back to people that actually want to wear them. So yeah of course a little bit of stir, but so far the response has been positive.”
The majority of the comments on our reel were positive, with users praising Richard’s efforts to thwart flipping. Some, however, while against flipping were against the idea of cancelling and refunding such orders. One user commented: “It’s none of his business! When you buy something and you own it, it’s your business to decide what to do with that thing, it’s that simple, you can’t tell people what to do with their belongings. This looks like a marketing strategy or something like that. What’s next? He won’t sell you a watch, if you don’t wind it everyday?!”
For me personally, I am with the majority in the comments that efforts, like Richard’s, should be applauded. He is not alone in such a perspective. For example, Hajime Asaoka created the brand Kurono Tokyo with the intention of making quality watches available at a lower price and available to those who will most appreciate them. Trying to prevent people with the immediate intent of flipping it from getting their hands on the watch is a good thing for watch buyers. However, I also agree that once someone purchases something they should be free to do what they want with what they own. This is why I make the distinction of those trying to flip a watch, from those who later elect to sell their watch.
Informing this, I once had a collector tell me a story about how after a year of owning a certain highly desirable watch from an in-demand brand, he had to sell it in order to fund renovations to their home – a genuine reason to part with a watch. The brand caught wind of their sale of their watch, and sent an ominous email scolding them for selling the watch they had allocated to them a year prior. This response from the brand is something I do not endorse.
At the end of the day, transparency is key. And, I feel that with explicit terms and conditions, such as the terms set by Kurono Tokyo, all buyers, regardless of their intentions, have an understanding of what they are getting into by making a transaction. Until I hear hundreds of horror stories from watch enthusiasts saying that their orders were cancelled unjustly, and that they had no intention to flip the pieces, I am not worried that such preemptive efforts will hamper the purchase experience for genuine buyers.