Help me understand watches and value

[djf881]

Originally Posted by gazman70k

At the very high end and can be considered works of art: For shoes, I would put the cobbler Hidetaka Fukaya, John Lobb London, Roberto Ugolini up there (no RTW or MTM service, all MTO) with the following watchmakers Phillipe Dufour, Kari Voutilainen, Vianney Halter or Roger Smith. Artisans who are at the very top of their craft and widely recognised within their industry. They are all independent businesses operated by the artisan, with personal service AND personal supervision (hands on or otherwise) of your product by the artisan. They deliver individualised products in small numbers that take an enormous amount of time to complete. For example, 12 months for a pair of Hidetaka's shoes (who makes his own thread and hand sculpts the last) or 4 years for a Phillipe Dufour Simplicity (who designed his own movements and supervises the hand finishing of the movement personally). Their prices are stratospheric but not because they are diamond encrusted but because they are painstakingly handcrafted. I truly believe that these products take on the soul of the artisan and are the ultimate appreciation of the finer things in life. A pair of Hidetaka's oxford in Metta Catherina hide will set you back EU7,000 while a Phillipe Dufour Simplicity in Platinum cost about EU25,000 (when it was released, they are now worth twice that as he has only made 200 pieces).

This is the really specialized signalling; the only people who are likely to recognize this are rich guys who know it is the watch they can't get.

At the high end, one could consider larger enterprises, whether owned by a luxury conglomorate or independent that has a long standing tradition of the craft, with some going back 100 years or more. In the watch world, these include the big 3, Patek Phillipe, Audemar Piguet and Vacheron Constantine. A comparable shoemaker would be say John Lobb (Hermes) / Sutor Matellassi / Edward Green. Lots of hand finishing but they have better infrastructre to produce their high quality products but still in sufficiently small numbers.

I'd say that's about right.

I'd put Rolex along side Farragamo. Good tradition of watch making / shoe making but have branched out to make themselves highly successful, if not very commercial.

PP, AP, and VC traditionally made fine dress watches for gentlemen.

Rolex's pre-quartz tradition was the precision watchmaking for use by guys who flew jet aircraft and raced cars and climbed mountains. Omega was in a similar position.

Rolex famously developed the GMT Master to help Pan Am pilots deal with jet-lag, and Edmund Hillary wore a Rolex Explorer when he climbed Everest. James Bond wore a Rolex in the Ian Fleming novels, and Sean Connery wore a Submariner in the movies.

NASA issued Omega Speedmasters to the Apollo astronauts in the 60's.

Once quartz became available and usurped the "tool" market, Omega and Rolex went into a crisis. Rolex went up-market, which meant solid gold and diamonds, a decision that is still part of the Rolex brand.

Between quartz and global economic crises in the 70's Omega totally collapsed, was saved from bankruptcy by a government bailout, and was folded into the Swatch group. It has been rebuilding its brand since the 90's.

Then there's Panerai and Berluti. Any seasoned SFer or watch collector will tell you that both Berluti and Panerai have been able to extract significant value from the end consumer with what is considered an average product. Berluti with their blake construction Stefano Bi made shoes and Panerai with their Unitas movement. While they both offer high end (MTO and in-house movement) these are merely there to legitimise their more padestrian but bread and butter product lines. What makes them stand out is that they both have a loyal and obsessive fan base that more sophisticated / better quality brands would sell their daughters in to debauchery for - the Swan club with Berluti and Paneristi with Panerai.

Panerai made watches for the Italian navy during World War II, and didn't start making civilian watches until the 90's. They got a lot of exposure when Sylvester Stallone started wearing them, and then Richemont bought the company and made them more prominent. They don't make a lot of watches, but the people who wear them love them. The trend toward other watches getting bigger, including IWC making those big pilot watches, the ginormous Breitlings, Omega's 45 mm PO's and Rolex's new jumbo Sea Dweller may have something to do with the popularity of Panerai's large designs.

From here on down, I'll let you all figure out the mid-range comparisons but I think you get my point. For example, I'd put Allen Edmonds on par with say Omega or Logines. Well respected but could be had at a good discount if you were looking hard enough.

Omega used to compare more directly to Rolex's sport lines, and its fans still think the two are comparable, and that Omega is, therefore, a bargain.

Omega uses modified ETA movements, while Rolex's are all in-house, and the Omega brand was pretty badly damaged in the 70's.

Rolex's steel sport models are made from 904L steel, which is more corrosion resistant than ordinary 316L steel. However, wristwatches aren't ordinarily subjected to the kinds of corrosive substances that justify special steel, and 904L costs three times as much. Steel Rolex sports watches currently retail for twice what comparable Omega lines cost.

I should note that Seiko is the world's only vertically integrated watch manufacture. They make every single component in-house, from the mainsprings, screws, lubricants and event the luminous material. Their time pieces are actually far more accurate than what the Swiss produce and have smashed every Swiss based accuracy certification, including the COSC. The Swiss are of course not very happy about this and have countered with the allure of artisans working in their ateliers hand finishing movements.

Rolex, PP, AP and VC do most everything in-house. Many of the others use modified movements by ETA or Valjoux.

 

[gazman70k]

Great horlogerie knowledge and well summarised. I guess I was trying to make a brand position comparison between shoes and watches.

Rolex, PP, AP and VC do most everything in-house. Many of the others use modified movements by ETA or Valjoux.[/quote]

Glad you mention that these manufactures are vertically integrated. However, they are not as integrated as Seiko (as Seiko even produces its own luminous materials, crystal, lubricants and hairsprings, components that are outsource by almost every Swiss manufacture).

Of the three that you mentioned, Rolex is probably the most vertically integrated of the Swiss manufactures as they are independent and not part of a larger conglomerate. This includes smelting their own precious metals and creating their own alloys. Excellent examples of this include their Everose gold (which replaces the zinc with platinum to stablise the copper atoms and thus preventing rose gold from fading when exposed to chlorinated water) and the parachrom hairspring (which is made from an alloy that makes it anti magnetic). Rolex's operations are highly industrialised including machine stamping of the case and polishing for mass production and they do lead the industry in technological and production innovation. However, they still outsource some components of the production. I believe these includes the hands and crystal along with lubrication and luminous material. Of course, until as recent as 5 years ago, Rolex's Daytona housed the Zenith El Primero movement, which is now highly sought after by collectors.

AP relies heavily on Renaud Pappi for its high end movement manufacture including hand finishing. In fact, Giulo Pappi has written a book on high end watch finishing to explain the intricate detail of art that goes into high end pieces. Its done in a similar fashion to Vass' book on shoemaking and is worth checking out. It also explains very well where the extra dollars go to in terms of high end watch making including the labour intensive black polishing, bevelling of plates and hand finishing of screws. One can argue that while AP has an ownership stake in Renaud Pappi and has access to all its facilities, but it does not compare to Seiko's vertical integration.

PP is heavily reliant on Nivarox for its hairsprings. Nivarox supplies hairsprings to almost every watch manufacture. PP also buys movements from the Swatch group, most famously the Lemania chronograph movement that goes into the 5070 and 5970. PP, of course, highly modifies the movement to its specifications. In present terms, VC and Breguet are the other two brands to produce chronographs with the Lemania movement. There has been intense industry speculation about Swatch controlling the supply of these movements which cumulated in Patek discontinuing the 5070. It is now only producing the 5070 in platinum and no longer in gold. Prices for these pieces have increased over 120%. VC continues to use the Lemania in its Malte chronograph and has indicated it will continue to do so in the near future but they have announced that they are developing their own chronograph movement. Both VC and Patek movements bear the Geneva Seal hallmark, even though their level of finishing exceeds what is required in every category. However, Patek announced this year that it will no long apply the Geneva Seal. Industry speculation suggest that this is because, as of this year, Cartier introduced a movement that meets the Geneva Seal requirements and Patek wishes to distance itself away from a hallmark that may be considered too easy to attain.

VC has its own manufacture but given its ownership by Richemont, there are certainly sharing of infrastructure for production and R&D across the group. Richemont has some excellent internal resources like Lange as well as the manufacture's manufacture Jaeger Le Coultre, which is also highly integrated, and Roger Dubuis. In fact, there has been rumours that Panerai's "in-house" movement was actually developed in collaboration with Lange or resources from Lange. Why? Before Panerai's in-house movement, Lange's Langematik movement was the only movement to feature a clutch mechanism that resets the second hand when the crown is engaged for a time change (a nifty little feature if you ask me). Panerai's in-house movement features the same second hand reset.

The one brand that gets very little attention is actually Jaeger Le Coultre (and here lies another shoe / watch comparison. Check out JLC and Silvano Lattanzi's logos

) They are known as the manufacture's manufacture because of their amazing and high quality movements that they produce. JLC movements have been used in the past by many of the brands. This is one amazing company.

Also beware brands that "buy" a movement maker to attain "in-house" movement capabilities. I liken this to a shoe maker passing off a rapid blake construction as a welt construction.

Anyway, I digress but I continue to enjoy this thread very much. Hope my contribution is helpful.

Gaz

 

[acidboy]

Originally Posted by djf881

Omega uses modified ETA movements, while Rolex's are all in-house, and the Omega brand was pretty badly damaged in the 70's.


If Omega and ETA are in the same group, technically wouldn't ETA movements inside Omegas be called in-house too?

 

[gazman70k]

Originally Posted by acidicboy

If Omega and ETA are in the same group, technically wouldn't ETA movements inside Omegas be called in-house too?

No, as ETA supplies its movement to a wider group of watch brands. True in-house brands meand that they exclusively use the movements for their watches, e.g. you will never find a Patek in house movement in any other watch.

Gaz

 

[LabelKing]

I find it interesting that the Swiss are now regarded as the ne plus ultra of "hand-crafted" watchmaking when in fact their success was entirely dependent on machines and mass-production techniques.

It was the English who used to be at the top, but their industry became unsustainable as soon as the Swiss began marketing mass-produced watches at lower prices; the English still managed to linger on until the early 20th century.

They made some of the best chronometers and technical pieces, ever. In fact, I think there is a certain snobbery on part of the English in regards to Swiss and American watches, which both employed mass production techniques.

 

[dkzzzz]

http://www.magrette.com/the-timepiec...e-day-date.php

 

[Davidb2580]

I've owned numerous watches. First watch I ever bought when I was younger was an ESQ. Cheap, looked nice. First "expensive" watch I bought was a Rolex Sub 2 tone blue face. Also looked nice. Have owned lots of watches since. In 2006, I bought 4 Panerai's in 45 days. Some of my friends didn't understand how I could buy so many watches. They would say "you can only wear one at a time." People buy watches for many reasons. I feel it's the only jewelry that a man needs to wear. Some people buy it to show status. Some people to tell time. Yes, an automatic watch is not as precise as a quartz. But you're not really buying expensive watches just for the time. Any 15 dollar watch will tell you the time.

The point is that you're wearing a piece of art on your wrist and you should be the only one getting the enjoyment out of wearing the watch.

 

[Tarmac]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

http://www.magrette.com/the-timepiec...e-day-date.php

Do you have one of these? Any good? I presume they are intentionally panerai look alikes.

 

[Roger]

Originally Posted by johnnyblazini

I tend to agree with this, too bad no-one makes nice looking Quartz watches...
Oh, good lord! There's a whole world out there of absolutely beautiful-looking quartz watches: the Citizen Chronomaster (see pic below), the Grand Seikos, The Seiko Credor quartzes, the Citizen Campanolas....



This watch can be had with solid 18K gold case, as can the Grand Seikos, and Seiko Credors are so beautifully-made that they can range up to $100K. Here's the 18K gold Chronomaster:



And here's a Credor with the Seiko 8J81 thermocompensated quartz movement that is spec'd to the same +/- 10 sec. per year standard as the Grand Seikos (the smaller one to the right is the ladies' model). This is a watch that would be just lovely (in my opinion) as a dress watch (although for that I'd replace the metal bracelet with a tasteful leather strap) and keeps almost perfect time. Many owners of 8J Seiko movements find that they exceed specifications, and stay within 4 or 5 seconds a year (i.e., gain 4-5 or lose 4-5 over a 12-month period).



As I have alluded to above, there are other forms of beauty too. I'm a fan of what's termed High End Quartz watches (on the Watchuseek Forum), which, for the most part, are watches with quartz movements capable of staying within just a few seconds per year of correct time. The Chronomasters in the first two pictures are specified to +/- 5 seconds per year. Mine does considerably better than that, and, the way things are going, will lose about 1-2 seconds over a 12-month period. To me, in a watch that looks as good as the Chronomaster, this quality of function is true beauty. Grand Seikos are specified to be within 10 sec./year, and many do much better than that. And there are new power-maintenance technologies too. I'm a big fan of the newer solar-cell technology that is found in many Citizen, Casio, Seiko, and some European watches. With this, a light-cell (that uses any available light--sun, inside lighting, etc.) keeps the battery charged. Citizen claim that their "eco-drive" version of this means that no battery change will ever been needed. Most of us are a little skeptical of this, however, but owners' track records routinely show 12-15 year lifespans for the batteries used in conjunction with solar-cells. And these light-cells add no mass to the watch at all. Some of the solar-cell Citizens and Seikos are quite petite.

These higher-end quartz watches have much hand work in them and are built to last. Seiko claims that their quartz Grand Seikos will not need servicing (except for the occasional battery change) for 50 years. 50 years! The Citizen Chronomasters are fully guaranteed for 10 years.

As for needing a mechanical movement to get the exotic complications, this isn't really true. The best example I can think of would be the quartz Citizen Campanolas with lots of complications. Here's the link to the catalog:

http://citizen.jp/campanola/index.html

The Campanola Grand Complication models have moon phase, chronograph, world time, repeater function (chime), all in one very beautiful (in my opinion, anyway) package, with really quite aesthetically-pleasing enamel faces.

 

[AnGeLiCbOrIs]

Originally Posted by gazman70k

Glad you mention that these manufactures are vertically integrated. However... much. Hope my contribution is helpful. Gaz
Damn you know a lot!

How vertically integrated are JLC and Zenith?

 

[djf881]

Originally Posted by gazman70k

Great horlogerie knowledge and well summarised. I guess I was trying to make a brand position comparison between shoes and watches.

Looking at your other posts, it's evident that you have a much better basis for comparison than I do, on both subjects.

I would moderately disagree with you on the comparison of Rolex to Ferragamo. It seems the popular opinion of Ferragamo is that it has diluted its brand by branching beyond its proficiencies, into clothing and accessories lines of varying success, and by making lower-end, poorly constructed lines of shoes.

Rolex has an aesthetic sin as well; when it decided to stick to mechanical watches through the quartz crisis, Rolex also found that its solid-metal bracelets and large, thick Oyster cases made for very flashy jewelry when rendered in gold, and studded with diamonds. Rolex had been making the solid gold day-date since the mid-fifties, and started making solid-gold submariners and GMTs during the quartz crisis. Certain types of flamboyant personalities, like rappers and mobsters, and various nouveau riche and social climber types really liked the gold Rolexes.

That created a different sort of archetype of the Rolex owner than the brand had had in the 40's when Oysters were prized by RAF fighter pilots, the 50s, when Hillary wore his Explorer on Everest and Rolex designed the GMT Master for Pan Am, or the early sixties, when Rolex made the Sea Dweller for Comex divers and Sean Connery wore a Submariner as James Bond.

Rolex would probably rather forget this watch, shown here with its owner, apparently a fervent brand devotee.

Nonetheless, Rolex recently made a diamond-crusted version of its revamped GMT Master II, which unfortunately the source will not display here in a post here:

http://rolexforums.com/attachment.ph...1&d=1198848578

The bling-bling was part of the shift from what had been a technology product into a luxury product and this association is going to stick to Rolex.

Omega is also a little different than Allen-Edmonds, though with respect to the available discounts off the retail price, there's certainly an analogy.

Gold, lately, seems to be out of style and steel is in, which is doing a lot for Rolex's professional watches and for Omega as well, and Rolex's renewed emphasis on its remodeled subs and gmts and the surging interest in vintage watches is doing a lot to improve the brand's image.

 

[0b5cur1ty]

Originally Posted by Roger

Oh, good lord! There's a whole world out there of absolutely beautiful-looking quartz watches: the Citizen Chronomaster (see pic below), the Grand Seikos, The Seiko Credor quartzes, the Citizen Campanolas....

As I have alluded to above, there are other forms of beauty too. I'm a fan of what's termed High End Quartz watches (on the Watchuseek Forum), which, for the most part, are watches with quartz movements capable of staying within just a few seconds per year of correct time.

I'm so pleased someone mentioned high-end quartz here and I second everything you wrote in your post. You also just reminded me how great the Chronomaster looks on a strap instead of the bracelet.

While I still love my mechnicals, they have seen really very little wrist-time since my first HEQ arrived:

High-frequency 196kHz quartz movement with perpetual calendar, 8 year battery and end-of-life indicator; wrapped in a classic Seiko 200m water-resistent diver with a nice oyster bracelet. I was even inspired to write a review!

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...11#msg_4034720

 

[Roger]

Originally Posted by 0b5cur1ty

I'm so pleased someone mentioned high-end quartz here and I second everything you wrote in your post. You also just reminded me how great the Chronomaster looks on a strap instead of the bracelet.

While I still love my mechnicals, they have seen really very little wrist-time since my first HEQ arrived:

High-frequency 196kHz quartz movement with perpetual calendar, 8 year battery and end-of-life indicator; wrapped in a classic Seiko 200m water-resistent diver with a nice oyster bracelet. I was even inspired to write a review!

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php...11#msg_4034720
Ob5cur1ty, those Seiko 8F quartz movements, although not (as far as I know) thermocompensated, are really terrific examples of HEQ. I tend to think that they (the 8F32, 8F35, 8F56, 8F58), along with the Citizen E510 movements, are by far the best value for money in a watch, bar none. Accuracy of +/- 20 seconds per year is truly exceptional, and I think you'll probably find in your Seiko that there is an adjustment feature that will permit more fine-tuned calibration (something not present in the Citizen E510 movement unfortunately). A really competent Seiko watch-repair person might be able to tune your watch (if you should ever feel the need for this, which, let's face it, isn't that likely) once you see how it performs (gaining or losing) down to 8J and 9F performance levels. But track its accuracy; you may find that you're already in Grand Seiko territory! Many owners of Seiko 8F watches have found theirs to stay within +/- 10 sec./year without any adjustment whatsoever. Your watch is a beauty.

 

[0b5cur1ty]

Originally Posted by Roger

Ob5cur1ty, those Seiko 8F quartz movements, although not (as far as I know) thermocompensated, are really terrific examples of HEQ. I tend to think that they (the 8F32, 8F35, 8F56, 8F58), along with the Citizen E510 movements, are by far the best value for money in a watch, bar none. Accuracy of +/- 20 seconds per year is truly exceptional, and I think you'll probably find in your Seiko that there is an adjustment feature that will permit more fine-tuned calibration (something not present in the Citizen E510 movement unfortunately). A really competent Seiko watch-repair person might be able to tune your watch (if you should ever feel the need for this, which, let's face it, isn't that likely) once you see how it performs (gaining or losing) down to 8J and 9F performance levels. But track its accuracy; you may find that you're already in Grand Seiko territory! Many owners of Seiko 8F watches have found theirs to stay within +/- 10 sec./year without any adjustment whatsoever. Your watch is a beauty.

Thanks! After 2 months of ownership (in which it has barely left my wrist), I thoroughly concur with your opinion.

As to tracking accuracy: I last set mine on the 29th of August. As of today (17th of October) it is +/- ZERO seconds.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by djf881

Absolutely no point in pretending that isn't part of it. An expensive watch is one of the most unambiguous methods of signalling wealth, especially since men generally should not wear jewelry.

I heard somewhere that the three things you wear that people notice are your watch, your tie and your shoes. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I love how people just seem to invent these rules.