MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,171
15,975



The Seiko wristwatch that Steve Jobs wore in the famous 1984 Macintosh photo shoot sold for $42,500 in an online auction on Saturday (via CNET). Consigned by Jobs' former house manager Mark Sheff, the watch's band was said to be "in heavily worn condition," but still managed to draw the interest of 14 bidders and about 5,600 page views before closing out for $42,500.

steve-jobs-seiko-auction.jpg

The watch wasn't the only item of Jobs' old artifacts to get sold on the auction, however, with items ranging from his old Birkenstock sandals ($2,750) to one of the former Apple CEO's classic black turtlenecks, this one from his time at NeXT ($7,500). A lot of items, including his NeXT name tag, business card, 10K gold-filled Apple Computers pen, and a personally signed USPS return receipt, all sold for $16,250.

Considering the company's prolific history, many of its products have sold well in reseller's markets over the past few years. In December of 2014, a functioning Apple-1 computer that Jobs himself sold out of his parents' garage in 1976 went for $365,000 at an auction in New York. A few months earlier, the Henry Ford Museum won another Apple-1 computer auction with a record bid of $905,000.

Article Link: Steve Jobs' 1984 Seiko Wristwatch Sold for $42,500 at Auction
 

macs4nw

macrumors 601
Beauty and value are in the eye of the beholder. People buy paintings and other collectibles for ungodly sums. I wouldn't, but hey, to each his own.
True enough, but I would add that some of those well-heeled collectors acquiring paintings, persian rugs, 'superstar' memorabilia or other collectibles, rather than art aficionados, are extremely savvy investors who are keenly aware the appreciation of those items has, in recent memory at least, far outpaced inflation.
 
Comment

Kajje

macrumors 6502a
Dec 6, 2012
722
958
Asia
John Lennon's hair lock for 35 thousand doll hairs
Steve Jobs' worn out watch for 42 large ones
A couple kilo of Godfather xeroxes for 625 grand
Factory unlocked iphone for a 1,000 bucks

Bad economy huh?

4430460.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oblivious.Robot
Comment

mcfrazieriv

macrumors 6502a
Jan 30, 2012
970
2,364
Sense of humor: priceless.

John Lennon's hair lock for 35 thousand doll hairs
Steve Jobs' worn out watch for 42 large ones
A couple kilo of Godfather xeroxes for 625 grand
Factory unlocked iphone for a 1,000 bucks

Bad economy huh?

4430460.jpg
 
Comment

Amazing Iceman

macrumors 601
Nov 8, 2008
4,332
2,361
Florida, U.S.A.
Would anyone want to buy my Casio G-Shock stainless-steel watch for $ 3,000.00 ?
It's a steal! Buy it now, as it will be a lot more expensive when in the future I become famous.
[doublepost=1456189752][/doublepost]
Someone bought a lock of John Lennon's hair the other day for over $30k I heard. I'm guessing these people just have money to burn... Good for them I suppose! All I want is to have no mortgage!
So finally someone who's going to make a clone of Lennon. About time!
 
Comment

Bart Kela

Suspended
Oct 12, 2016
865
593
Searching...
One question: Why sell the stuff?
Presumably the family has enough memorabilia of Steve and these are some of the items that they are willing to let go of. I'm guessing his widow has a finite tolerance of clutter.

Heck, grossing $7500 from a turtleneck that probably cost $20 brand new and is now worth $2 is a fine strategy. Do you take a $2 tax write off or a ~$6500 one (minus the auction house's cut)? The winning bidder has helped reduced your tax liability with junk that many would throw away or give to Salvation Army.

I'd love to auction off my old Birkenstocks, but I'm not going to get $2750 for them.

As to the question as to why someone would buy the stuff, a few are probably hoping to resell the stuff at a profit. Maybe in a couple of years another sucker will bid $10,000 for that $20 turtleneck that was auctioned off at $7500.
 
Comment

Kajje

macrumors 6502a
Dec 6, 2012
722
958
Asia
I'm guessing his widow has a finite tolerance of clutter.
... or give to Salvation Army.
There are plenty of people out there who would love getting that turtleneck at the salvation army. They wouldn't care if it's from Jobs or Shnobz. Their difficult choices are whether to buy a 2nd hand turtleneck today, or food.

Now the turtleneck went to people who will never wear that piece of junk. Their difficult choice today is whether to buy piano black or matte black.

A finite tolerance of clutter, but an infinite tolerance of money.
 
Comment

Bart Kela

Suspended
Oct 12, 2016
865
593
Searching...
There are plenty of people out there who would love getting that turtleneck at the salvation army. They wouldn't care if it's from Jobs or Shnobz. Their difficult choices are whether to buy a 2nd hand turtleneck today, or food.

Now the turtleneck went to people who will never wear that piece of junk. Their difficult choice today is whether to buy piano black or matte black.

A finite tolerance of clutter, but an infinite tolerance of money.
Let's run through your scenario.

Let's say I have *two* shirts. One is donated to Charity Store X, at a fair market value of $2. The other is auctioned off and nets $7500. I take that $7500 that I made from selling the second shirt and buy a bunch of $5 shirts from Charity Store Z, and hire a truck out of my own pocket to deliver 1500 shirts to Charity Store Y. Charity Store X gets one shirt, Charity Store Y gets 1500 shirts, and Charity Store Z gets $7500. For me? Maybe a $1502 tax write off if I value the donated 1500 shirts at $1 apiece (since I bought them at $5, it might be hard to claim they would be worth $2 each).

Or I could take those 1500 shirts and distribute them evenly. Store X has 501 shirts, Store Y has 500 shirts, and Store Z has 500 shirts plus $7500 in cash. Still a $1502 write off.

And now the wrinkle. Let's say I auction off both shirts at $7500 each and donate the proceeds equally between the three stores. Each store gets $5000 and no shirts. For me? $15000 tax write off.

Or your way: I donate two shirts, one store gets nothing. You happy? One customer each at Store X and Store Y walks in and gets what he wants, a cheap shirt. The customer at the Store Z is out of luck. For me? $4 tax write off.

You are arguing that I should donate two shirts and shaft the third charity, probably because you don't understand some simple concepts of money.

That's a mighty limited vision there, son.

(Disclaimer: for simplicity I have ignore capital gains in this quick analysis. In most situations, there would be some tax burden from the auction.)
 
Last edited:
Comment

Kajje

macrumors 6502a
Dec 6, 2012
722
958
Asia
You are arguing that I should donate two shirts and shaft the third charity, probably because you don't understand some simple concepts of money.
You're absolutely right, I don't. And therefore you probably have more than I do. But wealth, my friend, I have plenty of.
 
Comment

Bart Kela

Suspended
Oct 12, 2016
865
593
Searching...
Thank you for clarifying that. Perhaps in the future you should consider whether or not you should be telling people what to do with their goods or money since you seem to lack the basic concepts of personal finance.

Wealth and generosity take many forms: time and money are just two. If you want to donate a shirt to Salvation Army or whomever out of the generosity of your heart and help a fellow man, that's very honorable of you. Just remember that situations sometimes present themselves where you can do something else that will have greater effect. A wise person may recognize those opportunities. You did not.

Junk that might not be worth $20 in fair market value can generate $60,000 at auction.

We don't know how the proceeds of this auction were used; the property was held by the former house manager, so we don't know if he was acting on the family's behalf or on his own for his own personal gain. We likely never will, it's none of our business. If it was indeed the Jobs family, I would bet that it goes to charity. It's not like Jobs' widow needs the cash, but she's smart enough to understand these sort of situations (she was a financial analyst before she married Jobs). The family was and still is very tight lipped about their charitable activities.

If it were the former house manager, maybe that person would really be able to use the extra income. I don't blame him, the cost of living is astounding around Silicon Valley. It's possible that he took most of the proceeds for himself, but then again, it's possible that he donated a portion to charity. Once again, we'll probably never know.
 
Comment

chelsel

macrumors 6502
May 24, 2007
447
218
It's worth noting that Steve preferred a watch with a round face not a rectangle.
 
Comment

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,388
19,449
It's worth noting that Steve preferred a watch with a round face not a rectangle.
As far as a watch or a smartwatch (although the latter wasn't so much a thing until relatively recently)?
 
Comment

Bart Kela

Suspended
Oct 12, 2016
865
593
Searching...
It's worth noting that Steve preferred a watch with a round face not a rectangle.
Steve owned a number of watches, this one was the most famous because it was captured in an iconic photo. It wasn't his only watch.

He also had a rectangular Baume & Mercier for a while.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.