Grand Seiko - Page 5

Also, FWIW, http://home.watchprosite.com/show-fo...ti-596536/s-0/

You were making fairly good point in your earlier post but I feel these comments are off the mark.

For starters, it was never Seiko's strategy to market GS internationally. And the reason for that is that the manufacturing capacity they had for this brand was quite small. Only their top watchmakers, are allowed to touch GS, which explains low quantities, primarily aiming the Japanese market were they enjoy a fantastic image.

They have now increased their production capacity and have just announced in Basel that they will be distributing the brand more widely to international markets.

I have owned 5 rolex (Submariner, Submariner Date, GMT Master, Explorer II, Daytona) and 1 GS (SBGM001). Objectively, the GS beats the pants off all the Rolex I've owned except the Daytona 116520, which I consider on par with the GS in terms of finish and perceived quality. You mention the lack of decoration on the GS movement, but that I know of, it isn't precisely Rolex' strongest suit.

As for Rolex' market share, of course they are not going to put a dent in their domination. But who is? GS will still be a niche player targeting the discerning few.

I own a quartz Grand Seiko but put it aside because the battery was dead (normal, it's been a few years). I remember the first time I brought the watch to the Seiko service centre (in Hong Kong) for a battery change, I was told to come back after a few days! Why? Because only the master in that work shop could touch Grand Seiko. Very impressive.

As far as the quality and craftmanship go, yes, Grand Seiko is on the very top.

I do not particularly agree with the comparison; despite the majority of consumers who consider the Phaeton a very expensive VW, there are those who realise it for what it actually is: a cut-price Bentley. This is not the case with the Grand Seiko. Some Grand Seiko cost as much as some of the established brands; it is a fantastic watch but there is no perceived or actual value for money. I would like to add that I do not recognise this "quality" some of you speak of. Who's to say that "quality" is measured by the number of perfectly polished cogs or the degree of accuracy of the movement or robustness or...? Who's to say that Edward Green shoes lack quality because they are "gemmed", an unknown term until not that long ago? Or that Patek lack quality because they are not as robust as their price would imply? Dare I say, and I apologise in advance if it seems patronising, those who compare a Grand Seiko with a Patek not only have they not had a Patek under a loupe but they probably haven't even handled one. Lastly, I have handled a Grand Seiko and I strongly believe it's a very nice and high quality item which would give the owner much satisfaction. Do I think it's of higher "quality" to my run-of-the-mill Sea-Dweller and Speedmaster, as some here claim? Absolutely not. Brennus, enjoy your watch in good health and for what it is: a no nonsense quality item that will serve you well and for many years. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are plenty, many actual Seiko/Grand Seiko experts, who would disagree with you and know what they're talking about in extending such an opinion.

Indeed. Hence, my aforementioned opinion that quality on such items, where romance comes into play, cannot be objectively measured. Personally, I consider Patek to be the epitome of "quality" and I very much consider the Grand Seiko to be overpriced. I can not see myself ever buying one. I have no doubt many disagree with this opinion.

it's all branding baby

I also once owned an IWC Ingenieur. It's also a good watch. But brands are different. Each one has it's own strength and weakness. It's all about SUBJECTIVITY.

Word at Basel is that the GS will be released internationally next year.

dl