How Maison Montres researches rare watches

This page sets a public standard for Maison Montres research. A useful conclusion must show the item being discussed, the question being answered, the evidence reviewed, the date and currency basis, and the limits that remain. A research note is not a physical authentication unless its scope says that a qualified inspection took place.

How is value evaluated beyond the brand?

Start by identifying the exact watch, not its logo. Confirm the reference, case material, dial and bracelet configuration, production period and relevant serial or movement context. Then record condition, replaced or altered parts, documents, ownership claims, service work and functional limits. Compare that evidence with completed sales for close examples. State whether the figure is a gross market observation, an expected seller net, an insurance basis or another defined purpose.

A conclusion should be a range when the evidence or market is thin. It should carry an effective date and currency. It should also show what could change the range: a physical inspection, a maker archive response, an invoice match, a movement photograph, a service estimate or a more comparable sale.

For service-specific scope, see watch valuation and watch appraisal. The two terms are not interchangeable for every purpose.

Source hierarchy

Use the following order. Higher-ranked evidence receives more weight for the claim it can actually support. No source is treated as proof of a different claim.

1. The watch and item-specific records. Inspect the physical watch where the question requires it. Record case, dial, hands, movement, bracelet, engravings, dimensions, function and matched documents. Photographs support a preliminary review but may hide alterations or faults.
2. The maker or its authorised service channel. Use current catalogues, archive records, service documents and written maker statements. Apply the maker's stated scope and eligibility. A maker record about manufacture does not by itself establish a complete ownership chain.
3. Completed primary transaction records. Use identifiable auction lots or other verifiable completed transactions with a sale date, venue, lot description, result definition and currency. Confirm whether the stated result is hammer, includes buyer's premium or uses another basis.
4. Published reference research. Use dated auction catalogues, museum material, specialist books and clearly sourced technical research to interpret production details. Separate the author's observation from facts attributable to a primary record.
5. Current offers and secondary commentary. Dealer listings, marketplaces, social posts and editorial summaries can show availability or market language on a date. An offer is not a completed sale, and repetition is not independent confirmation.

If two sources conflict, record the conflict. Do not silently choose the answer that produces the highest value. The next step may be a closer inspection, a direct query to the document issuer, or an explicitly unresolved finding.

Build the watch evidence file

1. Reference and configuration

Record the maker, model, reference, case material, size, dial, hands, bezel, movement calibre and number where appropriate, bracelet or strap, clasp and stated production period. Note which details were observed on the watch, read from a document or supplied by another party. Similar-looking references are not automatic comparables.

2. Condition and originality

Describe components separately. For the case, record geometry, surface wear, refinishing indicators and damage. For the dial and hands, record visible ageing, relume, refinishing or replacement indicators without claiming certainty beyond the inspection. For the movement, bracelet and clasp, note observed identifiers, wear, replaced parts and access limits. Avoid a single unexplained condition score.

Originality is a component-level question. A correct service part can support function while making a vintage example less comparable with one retaining period components. A report should state that difference rather than label the whole watch simply original or non-original.

3. Documents and provenance

List every document with its issuer, date, identifiers and physical or digital form. Match reference, serial, movement or case details where possible. A sales invoice can evidence a stated transaction; it may not prove the complete earlier history. An archive extract can report information held by the maker; it does not automatically prove current authenticity, present condition or ownership. A family story is a lead until records support it.

For ownership history, build a dated chain and label each link as documented, supported or unresolved. Keep personal data out of the published conclusion unless it is needed to explain the result.

4. Service and function

Record who issued a service document, which watch it identifies, the date and the work stated. Separate service evidence from current tests. A service card may support that an authorised service occurred; it may not show every component fitted before the work or prove present performance. Record amplitude, rate, power reserve, water resistance or complication tests only when the scope, equipment, date and result are known.

Service needs can affect cost, use and timing. They can also affect originality when parts or finishing change. If movement access or testing is outside the work, state that limit.

Compare the market on a like-for-like basis

A market comparison follows five steps:

1. Define the purpose. State the question the figure answers and the intended market or sale route. An auction estimate, insurance appraisal and expected private-sale net can use different assumptions.
2. Select comparables. Prefer completed sales with a close reference, configuration, era, condition, originality, documentation, venue and date. Explain every material difference.
3. Normalise the result. Record the sale date, original currency and published result definition. Do not mix hammer prices, prices including buyer's premium and dealer asks in one unlabelled series.
4. Separate gross from net. A public result is not automatically the amount a seller received. Estimate seller net only from a defined gross basis and itemised, current route terms such as commission, insurance, shipping, tax, repair and other agreed deductions.
5. State time and uncertainty. Give an effective date, reporting currency and any foreign-exchange source, rate date or conversion assumption. Use a range and scenarios when comparables are sparse or adjustments are material.

Active asking prices sit outside the completed-sale set. They may show current supply, but not demand at the asked amount. Withdrawn, passed or unsold lots can provide context if the status and any reserve limitations are clear; they are not completed sales.

For a worked example, the Maison Montres Patek Philippe 3940 guide shows three dated auction results in their published currencies and explains why they do not form one valuation range.

Before choosing a sale route, compare its contract and deductions using the auction house versus watch advisor guide.

What each source can and cannot prove

Uncertainty, review and corrections

Every material conclusion should separate three states: documented, when a source directly supports the claim; supported, when several facts point to it but do not close the question; and unresolved, when evidence is missing or conflicts. These are evidence-status labels, not scoring grades.

A valuation should show a central range only when the comparable evidence supports one. Use wider scenarios when physical inspection is pending, condition is unclear, the market is thin, a currency conversion is material or sale costs are not yet confirmed. Past results do not guarantee a future transaction.

When a source changes or a material error is found, correct the page, update its modified date and explain a change that alters the conclusion. The editorial standards explain sourcing, conflicts and correction requests. To request a correction or supply primary evidence, contact Maison Montres.

Keep the evidence portable

Keep reference data, document identifiers, service dates, location, insurance review dates and source links in one controlled record. The free watch collection register provides a local starting point. It does not authenticate or value a watch; it helps preserve the inputs needed for later work.

Primary sources used on this page

These links are examples of source types in the hierarchy, not endorsements and not evidence about an unconnected watch. All were reviewed on 14 September 2026.

• Patek Philippe: Ordering an Extract from the Archives — defines what its archive document describes and the conditions for obtaining one.
• Rolex: Service Card — defines what the card confirms after a full service by an authorised service centre.
• Phillips: Watches and past auctions — provides dated auction pages and links to published results.
• Christie's: How to sell — distinguishes auction and private-sale routes and describes the consignment process.
• Sotheby's: How to sell watches — describes estimates, consignment routes and access to past-sale records.

How to cite this method

Link to this page as “Rare Watch Research Methodology, Maison Montres.” Include the review date when timing matters. A citation means the method was used as a source; it does not imply that Maison Montres reviewed a specific watch, approved a conclusion or has a relationship with the publisher.

— Questions and answers

Rare watch research methodology FAQ

How is a rare watch's value evaluated beyond the brand?+

Identify the exact reference and configuration, then assess condition, originality, documents, provenance, service history and function. Compare the watch with recent completed sales for genuinely similar examples. State the valuation purpose, effective date, currency, likely costs and unresolved evidence. The brand name alone is not a valuation method.

Are asking prices evidence of market value?+

An asking price proves only that a seller offered a watch at that price on the observation date. It does not prove a buyer paid it. Asking prices can provide current supply context, but completed and verifiable transactions carry more weight in a valuation.

Does an archive extract prove authenticity or ownership?+

Not by itself. A maker's archive extract can report facts held in that maker's records, subject to its stated scope. It does not automatically prove that every component is original, that the watch is now authentic, or that an ownership story is complete. Match the document to the watch and test each separate claim.

How do condition and service history affect a valuation?+

Condition changes comparability. Record case geometry, dial, hands, movement, bracelet, replaced parts, faults and test limits separately. A service record can support that stated work occurred when it matches the watch, but it may not establish earlier condition or current performance. Valuation adjustments should describe these gaps.

Why can gross sale price differ from net proceeds?+

A published result may be a hammer price or may include buyer's premium, depending on the source. Neither number is automatically the seller's net. Seller commission, insurance, shipping, repair, taxes, withdrawal terms and other agreed deductions can change the amount received. Compare routes on a defined net basis.

Can photographs support a final authentication or appraisal?+

Photographs can support research and an initial scope, but they hide material facts. A final conclusion may require physical inspection, movement access, measurements, functional tests and document checks. The report should state what was inspected, what was not inspected and how that limit affects confidence.