Discussion
swerni said:
el stovey said:
swerni said:
Other than this one?
"People buy watches for all kinds of reasons, branding and associated notions of branding like heritage, are usually fairly high on the list."
Just in case you missed it."People buy watches for all kinds of reasons, branding and associated notions of branding like heritage, are usually fairly high on the list."
Or do you have some higher knowledge?
swerni said:
el stovey said:
I'm not really sure what your motivation is but I'm not really up for pointless arguing about use of the word "usually" or the phrase "all kinds of reasons".
Sorry mate, no motivation at all.I thought you were being assumptive as to why people buy them and you don't.
swerni said:
Steve McQueen said:
That's very special, how did you manage that?
The short version is, I asked nicely. The longer version is , you'll see in the first picture it's on top of a livestrong band.
While in sporting terms Armstrong may have been a s
t, the foundational he set up has help endless people deal with cancer. I was diagnosed with testiclar cancer nearly 10 years ago, so that band and yellow are very significant for me.
I met nick through a mutual friend who had interviewed both of us for a series of podcasts.
Went to an event at the orgional showroom and explained the significance and ask Nick if he'd do one off for me.
lostkiwi said:
Heritage is a marketing tool. Nothing more nothing less.
What rubbish, granted it can be used as a marketing strategy, "look how long we've been around, must be doing something right" etc.But it also tells you about the company, their products, their development, innovation and evolution over time as to how their products became great, and which stand the test of time.
I thought that would be quite important when buying an expensive watch with the possible intention of keeping it (running) for several decades, no?
bobbybee said:
What rubbish, granted it can be used as a marketing strategy, "look how long we've been around, must be doing something right" etc.
But it also tells you about the company, their products, their development, innovation and evolution over time as to how their products became great, and which stand the test of time.
I thought that would be quite important when buying an expensive watch with the possible intention of keeping it (running) for several decades, no?
Ok so take the example of Moser. They were around for a long time back before the early 1900s but then after 1917 all but disappeared (it became the 'Central Watch Repair Facility' under the Soviet regime). Then they reappear but although its the same brand its a different company. The heritage of Moser is there but its not the same company with an unbroken lineage even if the honourary chairman of the board is a descendent of the original founder of the company. The brand itself (H Moser & Cie) was relaunched by Dr Jurgen Lange in 2002.But it also tells you about the company, their products, their development, innovation and evolution over time as to how their products became great, and which stand the test of time.
I thought that would be quite important when buying an expensive watch with the possible intention of keeping it (running) for several decades, no?
Longines - used to be a separate company making their own very good movements now part of Swatch. How much 'heritage' is there in a company that used to make its own movements now using Swatch owned off the shelf ETA movements?
Omega - much the same.
Tag - Much the same.
Graham? Not any better.
U-Boat, Panerai and many others all use bought in movements put into their own cases. In that instance surely it is the heritage of the movement maker thats more relevant?
Outside a few very high end companies virtually none of the 'heritage' brands have any real substance behind their claims.
I think many people mistake 'famous' for 'heritage' as in "I've heard of that brand so it must be good".
Seiko (founded in 1881 and in continuous ownership of the brand ever since) has arguably a heritage as good as many other brands (in fact they probably have more right to claim heritage than most!) but in the eyes of the general public is a Seiko more desirable than an Omega? Or a Longines? Or even a Bremont?
Its like trying to claim Rover has a great heritage in cars. Once Rovers were aspirational to many and a high end product. Just how does that heritage reflect in todays Chinese made Rover? I would say not at all.
Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 27th January 10:11
lostkiwi said:
bobbybee said:
What rubbish, granted it can be used as a marketing strategy, "look how long we've been around, must be doing something right" etc.
But it also tells you about the company, their products, their development, innovation and evolution over time as to how their products became great, and which stand the test of time.
I thought that would be quite important when buying an expensive watch with the possible intention of keeping it (running) for several decades, no?
Ok so take the example of Moser. They were around for a long time back before the early 1900s but then after 1917 all but disappeared (it became the 'Central Watch Repair Facility' under the Soviet regime). Then they reappear but although its the same brand its a different company. The heritage of Moser is there but its not the same company with an unbroken lineage even if the honourary chairman of the board is a descendent of the original founder of the company. The brand itself (H Moser & Cie) was relaunched by Dr Jurgen Lange in 2002.But it also tells you about the company, their products, their development, innovation and evolution over time as to how their products became great, and which stand the test of time.
I thought that would be quite important when buying an expensive watch with the possible intention of keeping it (running) for several decades, no?
Longines - used to be a separate company making their own very good movements now part of Swatch. How much 'heritage' is there in a company that used to make its own movements now using Swatch owned off the shelf ETA movements?
Omega - much the same.
Tag - Much the same.
Graham? Not any better.
U-Boat, Panerai and many others all use bought in movements put into their own cases. In that instance surely it is the heritage of the movement maker thats more relevant?
Outside a few very high end companies virtually none of the 'heritage' brands have any real substance behind their claims.
I think many people mistake 'famous' for 'heritage' as in "I've heard of that brand so it must be good".
Seiko (founded in 1881 and in continuous ownership of the brand ever since) has arguably a heritage as good as many other brands (in fact they probably have more right to claim heritage than most!) but in the eyes of the general public is a Seiko more desirable than an Omega? Or a Longines? Or even a Bremont?
Its like trying to claim Rover has a great heritage in cars. Once Rovers were aspirational to many and a high end product. Just how does that heritage reflect in todays Chinese made Rover? I would say not at all.
Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 27th January 10:11
To me a brand has heritage if it had made iconic watches
Wiki says - Heritage may refer to:
History, "heritage" refers to historical events or processes that have a special meaning in group memory
Here again heritage is about the company being linked to history and events or groups of people that the buyer connects with emotionally.
It's obviously seen as important to Bremont, or they wouldn't be spending so much effort trying to create these artificial links and tie ins and instant history.
All those companies you list as having no real heritage above, to me ,all have great watch heritage (except graham).. They all make iconic watches and are significant in watch making history.
Whether or not it's important to you or any other person is obviously a personal thing but as pointed out, the reason people are commenting about bremonts heritage is because they are making it all up. Not because they are a new.watch company.
Although I tend to prefer iconic watches, I'd stil happily buy a watch I liked from someone without heritage like sinn. But what puts me off Bremont as a company is the concentration and emphasis on artificially trying to create history when they have none. That and lying about making in house movements puts me off. I still think they make great looking watches though.
swerni said:
Steve McQueen said:
That's very special, how did you manage that?
The short version is, I asked nicely. The longer version is , you'll see in the first picture it's on top of a livestrong band.
While in sporting terms Armstrong may have been a s
t, the foundational he set up has help endless people deal with cancer. I was diagnosed with testiclar cancer nearly 10 years ago, so that band and yellow are very significant for me.
I met nick through a mutual friend who had interviewed both of us for a series of podcasts.
Went to an event at the orgional showroom and explained the significance and ask Nick if he'd do one off for me.
k about "heritage"Good for you Swerni, good for you!!!!
lostkiwi said:
Sorry, but you're missing the point.Heritage is something you build up over time. Yes many brands today can claim brand history, but their current production companies and products bare little resemblance to their historical output.
But, their history, their heritage still exists.
I have nothing against Bremont products. But, do not like the blatant BS coming from the brand
They are using marketing BS to create an illusion of history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create product ties-ins with long standing companies to create an illusion of shared history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create an association with aviation, which they do not have.
Do you get that?
bobbybee said:
Sorry, but you're missing the point.
Heritage is something you build up over time. Yes many brands today can claim brand history, but their current production companies and products bare little resemblance to their historical output.
But, their history, their heritage still exists.
I have nothing against Bremont products. But, do not like the blatant BS coming from the brand
They are using marketing BS to create an illusion of history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create product ties-ins with long standing companies to create an illusion of shared history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create an association with aviation, which they do not have.
Do you get that?
I`m curious, does "heritage" play any part in your buying decisions, watches / cars or anything at all????Heritage is something you build up over time. Yes many brands today can claim brand history, but their current production companies and products bare little resemblance to their historical output.
But, their history, their heritage still exists.
I have nothing against Bremont products. But, do not like the blatant BS coming from the brand
They are using marketing BS to create an illusion of history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create product ties-ins with long standing companies to create an illusion of shared history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create an association with aviation, which they do not have.
Do you get that?
bobbybee said:
Sorry, but you're missing the point.
Heritage is something you build up over time. Yes many brands today can claim brand history, but their current production companies and products bare little resemblance to their historical output.
But, their history, their heritage still exists.
I have nothing against Bremont products. But, do not like the blatant BS coming from the brand
They are using marketing BS to create an illusion of history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create product ties-ins with long standing companies to create an illusion of shared history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create an association with aviation, which they do not have.
Do you get that?
But what value does heritage add? Does it make for a better watch thats better made than a watch without heritage? No.Heritage is something you build up over time. Yes many brands today can claim brand history, but their current production companies and products bare little resemblance to their historical output.
But, their history, their heritage still exists.
I have nothing against Bremont products. But, do not like the blatant BS coming from the brand
They are using marketing BS to create an illusion of history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create product ties-ins with long standing companies to create an illusion of shared history, which they do not have
They are using marketing BS to create an association with aviation, which they do not have.
Do you get that?
Does it have a quantifiable value? Not that I can see.
Does it create ground breaking technological or horological breakthroughs? Not by itself.
Its very tenuous in my view and that makes it more of a marketing tool than anything.
Something someone can use in pub top trumps.
'My watch is made by company_x who have 200 years of watch making heritage'. So what? I refer you to Rover in my earlier post.
don logan said:
I`m curious, does "heritage" play any part in your buying decisions, watches / cars or anything at all????
Not really.I buy on many criteria depending on the item, quality, reliability, after sales support, professional reviews.Or sometimes, just because I like it and want it.
As I would think most people do.
If there is a heritage behind a product or brand, a true historical background, I might be on occasion interested in reading up on it.
My issue (among many) is the faux rubbish shouted out by new brands playing at being old. It comes to light very quickly, so I don't get why they do it. That's not marketing (embellishing the truth) it's just plain lying.
Take our current brand of discussion, why all the military / aviation history, where there isn't any?
Take another new(ish) brand Bell & Ross started in 1992 in partnership with Sinn, then branched out on their own in 2002. A new brand with actual military ties with the french armed forces.
No BS needed
lostkiwi said:
But what value does heritage add? Does it make for a better watch thats better made than a watch without heritage? No.
Does it have a quantifiable value? Not that I can see.
Does it create ground breaking technological or horological breakthroughs? Not by itself.
Its very tenuous in my view and that makes it more of a marketing tool than anything.
Something someone can use in pub top trumps.
'My watch is made by company_x who have 200 years of watch making heritage'. So what? I refer you to Rover in my earlier post.
I agree, the above has very little to do with the current product itself. That's not the point and you know it.Does it have a quantifiable value? Not that I can see.
Does it create ground breaking technological or horological breakthroughs? Not by itself.
Its very tenuous in my view and that makes it more of a marketing tool than anything.
Something someone can use in pub top trumps.
'My watch is made by company_x who have 200 years of watch making heritage'. So what? I refer you to Rover in my earlier post.
The point being made is about a company that doesn't have any being too new (and absolutely nothing wrong with that) but claiming it does.
This is not marketing it's simple BS
Do you get that?
bobbybee said:
I agree, the above has very little to do with the current product itself. That's not the point and you know it.
The point being made is about a company that doesn't have any being too new (and absolutely nothing wrong with that) but claiming it does.
This is not marketing it's simple BS
Do you get that?
I get you don't like their marketing (aka 'heritage').The point being made is about a company that doesn't have any being too new (and absolutely nothing wrong with that) but claiming it does.
This is not marketing it's simple BS
Do you get that?
However to claim they have no association with aviation is incorrect. Both Nick and Giles both own a collection of and fly vintage planes (and have done before starting the company). Their father was an ex-RAF pilot who flew Spitfires in the war and subsequently owned a Spitfire. They have business partnerships with several squadrons (which is no different to B&R which you seem to have no issue with).
Both Nick and Giles have also suffered crashes in planes - Nick being a passenger in the plane which killed his father (who was piloting it).
His father had an aviation business restoring old aircraft and was the person who got Nick and Giles interested in both flight and horology.
Even the name Bremont has a story:
The Spectator said:
...they took off in an old German biplane to help friends who had crash-landed in Champagne. Stormy weather over France forced Nick and Giles to land in a pea field. If a plane makes an unscheduled landing in France, the police can impound it for weeks and the brothers could see the blue flashing lights approaching as they climbed out of the plane. Just then an old man and his daughter miraculously appeared and helped them drag the plane into hiding in a barn. Then he welcomed the brothers into his home.
They discovered their host, Antoine Bremont, was also a pilot and shared a love of horology. M. Bremont was still wearing his father’s watch and said that a wristwatch shares our life and is party to more experiences than any other object we own. Giles and Nick (who was wearing his own late father’s watch) listened attentively and at that moment decided to create a watch that would last a lifetime, honour their father and celebrate Nick’s survival. In gratitude to their host, they named their brand Bremont.
So OK some of the other stuff may be marketing BS but not the aviation history ('heritage'?) of the company founders.They discovered their host, Antoine Bremont, was also a pilot and shared a love of horology. M. Bremont was still wearing his father’s watch and said that a wristwatch shares our life and is party to more experiences than any other object we own. Giles and Nick (who was wearing his own late father’s watch) listened attentively and at that moment decided to create a watch that would last a lifetime, honour their father and celebrate Nick’s survival. In gratitude to their host, they named their brand Bremont.
ETA link to spectator article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/11/an-english-phoe...
Edited by lostkiwi on Wednesday 27th January 12:54
lostkiwi said:
bobbybee said:
I agree, the above has very little to do with the current product itself. That's not the point and you know it.
The point being made is about a company that doesn't have any being too new (and absolutely nothing wrong with that) but claiming it does.
This is not marketing it's simple BS
Do you get that?
I get you don't like their marketing (aka 'heritage').The point being made is about a company that doesn't have any being too new (and absolutely nothing wrong with that) but claiming it does.
This is not marketing it's simple BS
Do you get that?
However to claim they have no association with aviation is incorrect. Both Nick and Giles both own a collection of and fly vintage planes (and have done before starting the company). Their father was an ex-RAF pilot who flew Spitfires in the war and subsequently owned a Spitfire. They have business partnerships with several squadrons (which is no different to B&R which you seem to have no issue with).
Both Nick and Giles have also suffered crashes in planes - Nick being a passenger in the plane which killed his father (who was piloting it).
His father had an aviation business restoring old aircraft and was the person who got Nick and Giles interested in both flight and horology.
Even the name Bremont has a story:
The Spectator said:
...they took off in an old German biplane to help friends who had crash-landed in Champagne. Stormy weather over France forced Nick and Giles to land in a pea field. If a plane makes an unscheduled landing in France, the police can impound it for weeks and the brothers could see the blue flashing lights approaching as they climbed out of the plane. Just then an old man and his daughter miraculously appeared and helped them drag the plane into hiding in a barn. Then he welcomed the brothers into his home.
They discovered their host, Antoine Bremont, was also a pilot and shared a love of horology. M. Bremont was still wearing his father’s watch and said that a wristwatch shares our life and is party to more experiences than any other object we own. Giles and Nick (who was wearing his own late father’s watch) listened attentively and at that moment decided to create a watch that would last a lifetime, honour their father and celebrate Nick’s survival. In gratitude to their host, they named their brand Bremont.
So OK some of the other stuff may be marketing BS but not the aviation history ('heritage'?) of the company founders.They discovered their host, Antoine Bremont, was also a pilot and shared a love of horology. M. Bremont was still wearing his father’s watch and said that a wristwatch shares our life and is party to more experiences than any other object we own. Giles and Nick (who was wearing his own late father’s watch) listened attentively and at that moment decided to create a watch that would last a lifetime, honour their father and celebrate Nick’s survival. In gratitude to their host, they named their brand Bremont.
The brand, the BRAND has no heritage as they are new
no I don't like their marketing (aka heritage), heritage is NOT marketing it IS history, which the BRAND does not have, yet.
The brothers crashing a plane, getting a name for their company through the experience has nothing to do with the brand apart from the name.
The family has a long history of flying from father to sons, the BRAND does not have aviation history / heritage.
Great stories, an interesting note on how the name came about, but that is ALL.
They have absolutely NOTHING to do with the BRAND or the BS historical marketing the BRAND is using trying to create the illusion of heritage, as the BRAND does NOT have any yet.
What do you NOT understand?
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff