I love the article and thanks Jeff for staying up late while you have a job and family and writing something for all of the rest of us to smile about during a time when there is so much to frown about.

I have one nit to pick and I know I am an ass to pick it but it is a pet peeve. My pet peeve is the use of the word "rare" and the fact that rare and scarce are sort of used interchangeably in the article. To me the use of the word rare in the first criteria would made the third criteria impossible. To me rare means that even serious collectors can't have one. I hear Newman Daytonas described as "rare" by the Rolex crowd. To me, rare means I can't get one unless I am simply extremely lucky or I have more money than brains. Rare means between 1 and 5 examples were ever made and that they are probably all in the finest collections and I can't get one unless I am the Sultan of Oman.

I think Scarce is the right word or very scarce, that's why there are two different words....but then I am the same ass who objects to the use of NOS 99.9% of the times I see it. NOS when you are talking about 60+ year old watches is "rare." It almost doesn't exist. It does not mean a watch which looks barely used. NOS means something. To me, so does rare. These are things which pretty much don't exist for the normal fanatical collector.

Sorry to be an ass Jeff.

JohnCote