Men’s 14K Gold & Diamond Retro Longines Wristwatch

Men's 14K Gold & Diamond Retro Longines Wristwatch
Photo Credit: Central-Jersey-Estate-Liquidators

Men’s 14K Gold & Diamond Retro Longines Wristwatch

Buy It Now Price: $349.99 (price as of 2017; item no longer available)

Pros:

-Here is a very attractive men’s solid 14 karat gold & diamond retro Longines wristwatch from the World War II era, circa 1945.

-The case is made from solid 14 karat gold and the dial has diamond hour markers at the 12, 3 and 9 o’clock positions.

-The dial appears to be in superb condition and has not been refinished – a desirable attribute for European vintage wristwatches.

-This retro Longines wristwatch has a rectangular case that measures 21.4 mm (0.84 inches) wide by 21.4 mm (0.84 inches) long, excluding the lugs and crown.  This would be considered rather small by today’s standards, but was completely normal for men’s wristwatches in the 1940s.

-Longines wristwatches were one of the finest luxury watch brands of the early to mid 20th century, easily the equal of competitors Omega and Rolex.

-This retro Longines wristwatch sports a manual-wind, 17 jewel, 8LN movement which is completely consistent with a mid 1940s attribution.  In addition, the serial number on the movement, 7059639, pinpoints the year of manufacture in 1945.

-Although I can’t verify the exact model of this retro Longines wristwatch, I am certain it is from the 1940s.  It is almost identical, stylistically speaking, to the Longines “Coronation Strap” model which retailed for $125 in 1941.  Adjusted for inflation, that is the equivalent of $2,083 today!

-I love the sculpted, hidden lugs on this retro Longines wristwatch.  They really epitomize the stylistic zeitgeist of the 1940s era.

-Longines vintage wristwatches are similar to American vintage wristwatches in that they are largely overlooked in today’s marketplace.  How else do you explain the ridiculously low $350 buy-it-now price for this solid 14 karat gold and diamond example from the 1940s?  I believe that savvy connoisseurs should accumulate vintage Longines wristwatches now, while they are still underpriced.

 

Cons:

-The crown might be a replacement.  You could probably have an original crown swapped in for a modest fee when you have the watch serviced.

-The seller claims this retro Longines wristwatch is running, but doesn’t know its service record.  Therefore, he is selling it as-is.  If you were to purchase this watch, you would be wise to have it immediately serviced.  This would probably cost somewhere between $100 and $300, assuming no major issues are found.

-Some of the hour markers on the wristwatch are heavily tarnished.  This makes it appear far less attractive than it could be.  Luckily, I think a professional dial restorer could easily clean the hour markers for around $50 or even a bit less.  You could also have the rest of the dial restored at the same time, if you so desired, but this would drive up the price.  In addition, some vintage wristwatch collectors adamantly favor original dials, and this retro Longines wristwatch has a nice original dial (with the exception of the hour markers).

Don’t Ask your Financial Advisor about Tangible Assets

Don't Ask your Financial Advisor about Tangible Assets

A few days ago I was reading an article about investing in antiques.  At the end of the article, the author said that you should ask your financial advisor whether antiques are a good fit for your portfolio.  This is such poor advice that I just about fell out of my chair.

There are some questions that are completely OK to ask your financial advisor.  For example, it would be appropriate to enquire if you have enough bond exposure in your portfolio or if you are in a position to participate in stock IPOs.  But there are some questions you should absolutely, positively never ask your financial advisor.  And many of these forbidden questions revolve around investing in tangible assets.

There is a good reason for my trepidation.  Many financial advisors make their money via commissions on transactions executed or fees on assets under management.  Both of these compensation schemes require the advisor to maximize your exposure to traditional financial assets.

In the former case, the advisor only makes money when you execute a trade – usually a stock, bond or ETF purchase – using funds under his auspices.  This is, incidentally, one of the worst ways a financial advisor can be remunerated because it encourages churn, or excessive trading, in your account.  Load mutual funds that are subject to an up-front or deferred sales commission also fall into this category.

Financial advisors that receive money based on management fees are better than those that are commission based, but still may not give you completely unbiased advice.  Their management fees are calculated using assets under management.  But the term “management” here more or less applies only to brokerage assets.

If you should withdraw a significant sum of money from your brokerage account for any purpose – even to buy high quality alternative assets like fine art, antiques, precious metals or even real estate – it will reduce the assets under your advisor’s management.  This will have the effect of reducing your advisor’s future management fees.  A lot of financial advisors, even those who are otherwise honest, will find it difficult to recommend a savvy investment in tangible assets that will inevitably decrease their compensation.

But the real reason not to ask your financial advisor about tangible assets is that vanishingly few of them have any knowledge of the topic!  Most financial advisors start out as employees of large financial firms like Ameriprise Financial, Edward Jones or Charles Schwab.  These companies typically have a multi-month training regime in place.  This might sound like ample training time at first glance, but that perception is incorrect.

First, a new hire at one these gigantic companies must get the appropriate credentials – usually a series 7 and 63 or 66 license – by passing industry tests.  Once that is accomplished, the next thing a company wants its freshly minted advisors to do is sell, sell, sell!  I should know.  I trained as a financial advisor at a large firm.  Among my peers hired fresh off the street were a used-car salesman who had very flexible morals and a pretty red-head who was dumb as a rock.  They were typical of the caliber of candidate one often encounters in these programs.

If my revelations are making you a bit queasy about financial advisors, then good.  The licensing tests aren’t that hard to pass and the primary skill necessary in the field is the ability to weather rejection well.  Notice that I have mentioned nothing about intelligence, ethics or enthusiasm.  That is because most retail wealth management companies simply don’t care about any of those traits in the least.

Now, I am oversimplifying the retail financial industry slightly.  There are some genuinely good financial advisors out there.  They usually possess many years experience, having paid their dues at the large, meat-grinder firms.  Once they have built up a significant number of clients, they often leave their parent company and go into business for themselves.  And, perhaps most importantly, they usually bill via an hourly rate or a flat fee.  This means their advice is truly independent, or at least as independent as is reasonably possible in an industry that is infamous for its corruption.

Of course, even very experienced financial advisors still usually know next to nothing about tangible assets.  Most wouldn’t know the difference between an investment grade bronze Art Deco plaque and a banana. At best, they may be vaguely aware of the traditional role of gold and silver bullion in hedging a paper asset portfolio against depreciating fiat currencies.  This, however, is a very low bar to require from someone advising you on your money.

Precious metals are the gateway asset to the land of tangible investments.  Although gold and silver are good, far more tantalizingly exotic tangible assets lay beyond.  However, a certain amount of specialized knowledge is needed to be able to intelligently dive into those more obscure tangible investments.  So don’t bother to ask your financial advisor for his opinion on investment quality antiques or other tangible assets.  Chances are he is not qualified to hold an opinion.

The World’s Strongest Currency during the 20th Century

The World's Strongest Currency during the 20th Century

Not all national currencies are created equal.  Some have endured relatively intact over the course of the last 100 years, while others have been devalued into irrelevance.  So what was the strongest currency of the 20th century?

Before we get to the answer, I think it is important to cover the methodologies I’ve used to produce my results.  All performance is measured relative to the U.S. dollar, with the 1920s to very early 1930s as the starting point.  All return calculations also take into account currency conversions and revaluations.

Reviewing a little bit of monetary history is also in order.  The 1920s and early 1930s was the last time the gold standard was widely used by many nations.  Although World War I (1914 – 1918) forced many European nations to temporarily abandon their currency pegs to gold, most reestablished some form of gold convertibility during the prosperous 1920s.

The Great Depression of the 1930s irrevocably changed gold’s relationship to money, however.  As the global economic crisis deepened, nation after nation was forced to permanently suspend its currency’s gold convertibility.  Great Britain, one of the leading economic and military powers of the time, abandoned the gold standard in 1931.  The United States broke its traditional peg of $20.67 per troy ounce of gold in 1933.  The last nation to surrender its gold standard in the face of the economic maelstrom was the Netherlands in late 1936.

Whatever impetus there may have been to reestablish national currency links to gold was permanently extinguished by the calamity of World War II.  Instead, the monetary ecosystem was realigned around the (slightly devalued) U.S. dollar.

This was the venerable Bretton Woods system.  Under this regime foreign currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar, which was convertible into gold at $35 a troy ounce.  The U.S. dollar was not a true gold standard during this time, though, as only foreign central banks could redeem their dollars for gold.  Although the Bretton Woods system collapsed in 1971, it ushered in the dollar’s 70 year long (and counting) domination of the global monetary system.

But this leads us to our primary question.  What was the world’s strongest currency over the last 100 odd years?  Was any nation’s currency able to outperform the ubiquitous U.S. dollar during this period?  Drum roll please!

And the answer is…the Swiss franc!  Yes, the Swiss franc has been the strongest currency of the 20th century (and early 21st century) by far!  Relative to the U.S. dollar, the Swiss franc has appreciated by some 425% between the 1920s and 2017.  However, I should note that this performance was truly exceptional.

No other nation’s currency came close to being as strong as the Swiss franc.  This, undoubtedly, is at least partially attributable to the fact that Swiss law required the franc to have a minimum 40% gold backing.  This deference to the traditional gold standard was finally repealed by referendum in the year 2000.

The only other national currency that has been stronger than the U.S. dollar over the last century is the (now obsolete) Dutch guilder.  The Netherlands has been respected for its prudent, level-headed monetary management for centuries.  As a result, although not the strongest currency of the 20th century, the Dutch guilder appreciated against the U.S. dollar by about 22% between the 1920s and 2017.  The Dutch guilder was retired as a currency unit by the introduction of the euro in 1999.

With the exception of the Swiss franc and Dutch guilder, the U.S. dollar has been the world’s strongest currency since the early 20th century.  This is perhaps unsurprising considering the dollar’s excellent reputation for stability.  In addition, the U.S. dollar enjoys nearly universal acceptance for settling international transactions.  In my opinion, the U.S. dollar will continue to remain strong for the foreseeable future.

The British pound, on the other hand, has not held up nearly so well, depreciating by 74% versus the dollar.  Great Britain’s former colonies are a mixed bag.  The Australian dollar has lost some 69% of its value against the U.S. dollar since the 1920s.  The South African rand has been a real laggard, depreciating by almost 97%.  Only the Canadian dollar has done the Queen proud, devaluing by a mere 25% versus the U.S. dollar.

The Scandinavian countries deserve an honorable mention in the world’s strongest currency competition.  The Danish krone (-46%), Norwegian krone (-56%) and Swedish krona (-57%) all only lost about half of their value versus the U.S. dollar.  It isn’t easy keeping pace with the world’s reserve currency.

Not every currency can be in the running for the world’s strongest currency, though.  Let’s instead take a look at how some of the other major nations’ currencies managed versus the dollar.  And wow, do things turn ugly in a hurry.

The German mark was effectively wiped out twice during the 20th century.  The first of these currency extinction events was the infamous Weimar republic hyperinflation of the early 1920s.  A mere 20 years later, the German reichsmark collapsed in value at the end of World War II.

Life was also hard for anyone who dared to save in Russian rubles under the Soviet regime.  The Soviet authorities orchestrated a steady succession of devaluations taking place in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1947, 1961 and 1991.  Its successor state, the Russian Republic, maintained the tradition with a major currency collapse in 1998.  Needless to say, the Russian ruble has depreciated by about 100% compared to the U.S. dollar over the course of the 20th century.

The Japanese yen, although one of the world’s most important currencies today, hasn’t fared so well against the dollar historically.  Since the 1920s, the yen has lost about 98% of its value.  Most of this decline occurred during and immediately following World War II.  It seems the only thing worse for a nation’s currency than fighting an expensive war is losing one.

The French franc has also done rather poorly, losing around 96% of its value compared to the U.S. dollar since the 1920s.  Mexico, on the other hand, only slightly lags the French in the world’s strongest currency race.  The Mexican peso has plummeted by 99.99% versus the dollar, a hair’s breadth from joining the ignoble German mark and Russian ruble.  And we won’t even talk about the atrocious Venezuelan bolivar, which, ironically, used to be the strongest of the Latin American currencies during the mid 20th century.

While it is easy to view these currencies’ performance as laughably inferior, it is actually more the norm than the exception.  The U.S. dollar, in contrast, has been enormously resilient over the decades.  Of course, these measurements are all relative.

In reality, all fiat currencies – including the U.S. dollar – are inappropriate vehicles for long term savings.  As a point of comparison, since the 1920s silver has appreciated versus the U.S. dollar by over 2,800%.  Gold did even better, outperforming the world’s third strongest currency by nearly 6,000%.

This is one of the reasons I advocate investing in tangible assets such as fine art and antiques.  Unlike fiat currencies, which can be printed at the whim of corrupt or incompetent central bankers, rare and desirable art and antiques are strictly limited in supply.  The Swiss franc, Dutch guilder and U.S. dollar may have been the world’s strongest currencies over the course of the 20th century, but they still pale in comparison to investment grade tangible assets.

1929 Hungarian Proof Restrike Silver 5 Pengo Pattern from 1965

1929 Hungarian Proof Restrike Silver 5 Pengo Pattern from 1965
Photo Credit: Holgate-Numismatics

1929 Hungarian Proof Restrike Silver 5 Pengo Pattern from 1965

Buy It Now Price: $183.95 (price as of 2017; item no longer available)

Pros:

-Stunning is the best description for this ultra-rare 1929 Hungarian proof restrike silver 5 Pengo pattern coin.  The pattern shows the king of Hungary, Saint Ladislaus I, on the obverse.  He was the embodiment medieval Hungarian chivalry.  On the reverse are two angels holding the Hungarian crown above the national coat of arms.

-This Hungarian proof restrike pattern is quite large, with a diameter of 35 mm (1.38 inches) and a weight of 25.27 grams (0.8124 troy ounces).  It is struck from solid silver and is about the size of a U.S. silver dollar – factors that significantly enhance its value.

-A pattern is a coin that has been struck by a national mint for test purposes and is not intended for public circulation.  Pattern coins often have unusual or experimental designs that are never adopted for mass circulation issues.

-Pattern coins are usually ultra-rare, with mintages ranging from just a few specimens to perhaps a few thousand at the most.  This 1929 Hungarian proof restrike silver 5 Pengo pattern has a mintage of around 1,000 specimens – a small fraction of the million plus mintages of modern commemorative coins.

-This 1929 Hungarian proof restrike 5 Pengo pattern is not original, but is instead a restrike from 1965.  Artex, the state-owned trading subsidiary of the national Hungarian mint, restruck several classic late 19th and early 20th century Hungarian coins and patterns in the mid 1960s.  These Hungarian proof restrikes were sold in the West in order to raise hard currency for the Communist Hungarian regime.

-All of the Artex Hungarian proof restrike coins and patterns are of exceptional quality and command strong prices on the collector’s market.

-This 1929 Hungarian proof restrike silver 5 Pengo pattern has been third-party certified by NGC (Numismatic Guaranty Corporation) as Ultra Cameo Proof 66 – an exceptionally high grade that is approaching perfection (70 is the top of the grading scale).

Foreign pattern coins often have low mintages and reasonable prices, making them exceptional values in the rare coin market.  At only $184, this 1929 Hungarian proof restrike silver 5 Pengo pattern is a solid investment.

 

Cons:

-Under normal circumstances original coins are more desirable than restrikes.  However, in the case of Hungarian proof Artex restrikes from the 1960s there is usually little price differential.  In some instances, the restrikes are actually more valuable than the originals due to their superb quality!