Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

15
  • 7
    swiss watches arguably do count as works of art - and many of them even are registered with their first sale...
    – Trish
    Commented Mar 5, 2023 at 14:53
  • 19
    @Trish The source here uses the term "Kulturgut" (cultural heritage item) as requirement for the longer term. Not every piece of art is cultural heritage.
    – PMF
    Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 5:59
  • 3
    @Trish the term "Swiss watch" has been diluted so much over the last few decades that that's hardly the case any more.
    – jwenting
    Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 6:52
  • 4
    @Trish The idea behind the special rules for works or art is that these are individual and cannot be replicated. I'm not sure this would apply for any non-historic watch.
    – quarague
    Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 9:27
  • 1
    @quarague I am aware of that (or the dilution of swiss watch as a term), but swiss watchmaking with jewel bearings and the precision is a cultural heritage craftsmanship. The question does not establish if the watch in question was a unique item orn unidentifiable one. A similar distinction can be on Katana in Japan: either it is a properly made handwork, a relic or work of art with cultural significance... or a tool like an iaito (training sword) or a Gunto (sp?) (WW2 officer sword) does barely get that protection. My point was mainly, that "watches are not works of art" can't be generalized.
    – Trish
    Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 10:02