What makes an expensive watch, expensive?

[nickjw]

Hi all
I love all things of quality, particularly antique/vintage. I myself collect 19C pocket watches. What I would like know is what makes an expensive watch, expensive?

For everyday use, I where one of these:

http://www.sekonda.co.uk/lifestyle_images/1_lifest...

The only reason I bought it was that my usual watch stopped working (battery) on the way to the USA. I saw the Sekonda in a duty free shop and thought it looked rather nice. It only cost me around £50! It has never let me down and is cheap to ‘run’.

I also own an Omega which again has never let me down but does cost a small fortune when I have it serviced or a new battery fitted. I also have all my previous ‘cheap’ watches which I have grown up with through the years (Timex, Rotary etc) and they all still work. This suggests that they have all been built to a good standard and will no doubt out last me.

So what make an expensive watch expensive? Obviously a solid gold or silver watch with diamonds will cost a bucket load but let’s just consider a stainless steel example.

Here we have a lovely Omega costing approx £2k

http://www.thewatchhut.co.uk/omega/omega-speedmast...

Here is a Seiko watch costing nearly £90.

http://www.findwatches.co.uk/gents-stainless-steel...

Both are similar but the variation in price is not to be sniffed at!

I appreciate that you are paying for the name but is there anything else? For example, is an Omega hand made? I would love to think that someone has spent hours fettling the innards of an Omega to perfection but are they not made by machine as per the Seiko?

Interested in your thoughts.

Kindest
Nick

[glazbagun]

That particular Seiko isnt really a good comparison, it being quartz, and mass produced at a much cheaper price than a mechanical chronograph movement containing many components requiring hand assembly, but in general I put the difference down to (in some cases) branding/marketing/advertising/store network overheads, and...

Cost of skilled labour and tooling divided by units shifted. Omegas are, to my knowledge, entirely machine-made, but are assembled by hand, and may feature hand-finishing on some models. Great effort is put into the design and tooling for each component to ensure that they are consistenly made within tolerence (I'm thinking of the Omega/daniels Co-Axial particularly, here).

The cost of servicing is probably just due to the wages of the watchmaker- if you have a watch worth thousands of pounds, then you arent goigng to be happy with even a damaged screwhead when it comes back from a watchmakers- such guys cost money, and cost the same even if the watch they're working on is inexpensive, or if what they're doing isnt so demanding. Then on top of that, you have the premium/luxury profit that has to be added to make it worthwhile- competing with the far east on price is a surefire way to end your business, so the swiss concentrate on the high quality end, where they can make more profit, much like BMW.

The really expensive stuff like Gruebel Forsey are largely machine made, but every part is hand-finished to perfection. I think something like a third of their staff do nothing but hand-finish parts, and will be very good at it. On top of the design costs, they only produce a watch a month, which adds exclusivity, but also means that each watch is going to have to cost a fortune to pay for everything.

To give you an idea of how long things take manually- I recently made a carriage-clock star wheel and blued post for my BHI exam and it took me two weeks using only a lathe and hand tools. If I had to make it again, to the same standard, I could probably do it in a week flat-out (I'm only a first year student, so everything is still a learning experience to a degree) and eventually a couple of days, but even at UK minimum wage (not happening!) that would be >£100 for a exibhition quality wheel. Much cheaper/faster if I could buy/make the part precision cut with CNC and with only hand-finishing to worry about. It would take a set-up machine minutes and me less than a day.

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 29th June 14:42

[ShadownINja]

But are they really that decent in terms of quality? A £50 Seiko 5 could be better built and require no servicing... I mean... I had never heard of servicing a watch until I looked at Swiss watches. That says to me: they break unless you get someone to look at them regularly. And when they're 30 seconds out, someone says, "Oh, that needs servicing." No, it needs FIXING.

And let's look at an Omega Seamaster that cost £1000 in 1990? How many services would it have had by 2009? 4? How much is that in total? I mean would it have made more financial sense to not service the watch, bin it and buy a new one? And which would last longer? A Seiko 5 or an Omega Seamaster?








But before you ask, yes, I would buy a 2254.50 over an SKX007.

Edited by ShadownINja on Monday 29th June 14:50

[glazbagun]

ShadownINja said:

But are they really that decent in terms of quality? A £50 Seiko 5 could be better built and require no servicing... I mean... I had never heard of servicing a watch until I looked at Swiss watches. That says to me: they break unless you get someone to look at them regularly. And when they're 30 seconds out, someone says, "Oh, that needs servicing." No, it needs FIXING.

And let's look at an Omega Seamaster that cost £1000 in 1990? How many services would it have had by 2009? 4? How much is that in total? I mean would it have made more financial sense to not service the watch, bin it and buy a new one? And which would last longer? A Seiko 5 or an Omega Seamaster?

Theres a parallel with cars here. Many people would see getting, say, a 90's Honda regularly serviced, or spending thousands restoring a classic madness if the car is only worth a couple of grand- look at the classics people have been scrapping just to get a Hyundai or Kia! But if it matters to you that your car/watch is in top condition, then it's of good value to you. And just as people obsess over getting an extra few BHP/MPG out of their engine on a rolling road, so others obsess about how accurate their watch is.

People dont spend thousands on nice watches or cars because it is the most brutal financial argument. They buy them because it's one of their pleasures in life and they derive enjoyment from it.

[bikemonster]

Like most products, watches are priced at what the market will bear.

I'll avoid the contentious examples and pick one that hopefully everybody can agree on. Here in Brightest Africa, the latest thing is called "Toy Watch". Their website says that Oprah loves them, which is prolly all you need to know. They are cheerful, brightly coloured plastic watches with a quartz movement and a Rolex Oyster sort of look.

Exchange rates can be confusing, but I recently bought a Seiko Orange Monster for about the same price as Toys are selling for.

Are the watches comparable in any meaningful, function sense? I do not think so for one second. Will Toy Watches sell hand over fist until they go out of fashion? Hell yeah!

Expensive watches are expensive because people are prepared to spend the money to buy them.

James

[HellDiver]

My watch is a £120 Seiko quartz chrono (7T32 movement) I bought 17 years ago. I've worn it every day since then, and it's cost me the price of 2 batteries (£4 each), and o-ring for the case back (25p), and a new strap last year (£14 for a Seiko genuine black nylon to replace the totally knackered stainless bracelet). It keeps accurate to a few seconds per month.

I don't see why anyone would need to buy anything else if all they want is a watch that does timekeeping.

[wigsworld]

ShadownINja said:

But are they really that decent in terms of quality? A £50 Seiko 5 could be better built and require no servicing... I mean... I had never heard of servicing a watch until I looked at Swiss watches. That says to me: they break unless you get someone to look at them regularly. And when they're 30 seconds out, someone says, "Oh, that needs servicing." No, it needs FIXING.

And let's look at an Omega Seamaster that cost £1000 in 1990? How many services would it have had by 2009? 4? How much is that in total? I mean would it have made more financial sense to not service the watch, bin it and buy a new one? And which would last longer? A Seiko 5 or an Omega Seamaster?








But before you ask, yes, I would buy a 2254.50 over an SKX007.

Edited by ShadownINja on Monday 29th June 14:50

I don't think Omega are the brand they used to be. Before the 1970's when they satarted using cheap movements they were on par with Rolex if not better. The quality is much better now though and certainly better than Tag Heur and Breitling. The moon watch is the Omega to have in my opinion.

[deejuic]

HellDiver said:

My watch is a £120 Seiko quartz chrono (7T32 movement) I bought 17 years ago. I've worn it every day since then, and it's cost me the price of 2 batteries (£4 each), and o-ring for the case back (25p), and a new strap last year (£14 for a Seiko genuine black nylon to replace the totally knackered stainless bracelet). It keeps accurate to a few seconds per month.

I don't see why anyone would need to buy anything else if all they want is a watch that does timekeeping.

If all you want is a watch for timekeeping, then I'd say that you are right. You wouldn't buy anything more expensive than a timex or a seiko.

If you're looking for something that has a unique style, heritage, craftsmanship that can't be found in a cheaper watch, you'll spend the extra money and pay for a luxury item.

I don't believe that the performance of these luxury items is that much better than the run of the mill seiko, but I do think that the uniqueness and ability to express my personality with a few different interesting pieces is the rationale behind my irrational decision to spend a ton of money on watches.

[Maris]

[quote]
I don't think Omega are the brand they used to be. Before the 1970's when they satarted using cheap movements they were on par with Rolex if not better. The quality is much better now though and certainly better than Tag Heur and Breitling. The moon watch is the Omega to have in my opinion.
[/quote]

Why the moon watch apart from the obvious ? I cant see the attraction of manual winding (unless the government start taxing gravity) and scratchable plexi glass. I don't think I`m likely to travel into space.

[Alexj800]

Ultimately, you just have to buy what you like. Even if I had pots of money, that wouldnt stop me buying a Citizen over a Rolex if I thought the Citizen was a nicer design.

[wigsworld]

Maris][quote said:

Why the moon watch apart from the obvious ? I cant see the attraction of manual winding (unless the government start taxing gravity) and scratchable plexi glass. I don't think I`m likely to travel into space.

I think I prefer the moon watch because it still has the same old 1861 caliber movement that they used in the original watch, I like the history of it I suppose. I like the plexi glass too, gives the watch a warmer look.

Edited by wigsworld on Monday 29th June 23:06

[anonymous-user]

ShadownINja said:

But are they really that decent in terms of quality? A £50 Seiko 5 could be better built and require no servicing... I mean... I had never heard of servicing a watch until I looked at Swiss watches. That says to me: they break unless you get someone to look at them regularly. And when they're 30 seconds out, someone says, "Oh, that needs servicing." No, it needs FIXING.

And let's look at an Omega Seamaster that cost £1000 in 1990? How many services would it have had by 2009? 4? How much is that in total? I mean would it have made more financial sense to not service the watch, bin it and buy a new one? And which would last longer? A Seiko 5 or an Omega Seamaster?







But before you ask, yes, I would buy a 2254.50 over an SKX007.

Edited by ShadownINja on Monday 29th June 14:50

Something I find different is the strap quality and also how it looks when its clean. I wear an IWC Derfliegerchronograph, and its beautiful in terms of workmanship. When you wash it then you really realise that its something much more exquisite than a Seiko or a Timex because it glistens beautifully like a piece of jewellery, rather than just a method for telling the time.

ETA stty quoting

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 30th June 13:24

[eccles]

deejuic said:

HellDiver said:

My watch is a £120 Seiko quartz chrono (7T32 movement) I bought 17 years ago. I've worn it every day since then, and it's cost me the price of 2 batteries (£4 each), and o-ring for the case back (25p), and a new strap last year (£14 for a Seiko genuine black nylon to replace the totally knackered stainless bracelet). It keeps accurate to a few seconds per month.

I don't see why anyone would need to buy anything else if all they want is a watch that does timekeeping.

If all you want is a watch for timekeeping, then I'd say that you are right. You wouldn't buy anything more expensive than a timex or a seiko.

If you're looking for something that has a unique style, heritage, craftsmanship that can't be found in a cheaper watch, you'll spend the extra money and pay for a luxury item.

I'd have to disagree with your 'unique style' comment, many of the top end watches have similar looking models in their range, or models that hark back to classic designs.
I'm not even sure I'd agree with the craftsmanship comment either, you only have to look at the threads on most watch forums asking for advice when people encounter problems with their watches.
Note the recent threads on here on Omega strap pins breaking, not something I'd expect on a watch that costs £2k!

It reminds me about a thread in the old P&P about toasters and a few posters trying to justify spending well over £100 on a Dualit toaster, it doesn't make toast any better than a £3 Tescos budget toaster, and when it goes wrong it costs quite a lot more than the price of the cheap toaster to repair. Watches are Similar, some of the expensive premium brand watches are actually not so good at telling the time as some cheap watches, and the cost of maintenance or repair is often more than the cost of many a cheaper watch!
I think , like many 'premium' brands, it's all about buying into the image.

[glazbagun]

I think it's important to remember that there is no one answer to how much you should pay for a watch. Just as with cars you get diminishing returns the further up the price scale you go. For some, the level of finish is worth the premium, for others it's the brand image, or durable financial value. Owning or needing a watch isnt the same as being "into" watches any more than owning or needing a car makes you a petrolhead, so there will always be disagreement as to wether or not something is worth what is paid for it.

[deejuic]

eccles said:

deejuic said:

HellDiver said:

My watch is a £120 Seiko quartz chrono (7T32 movement) I bought 17 years ago. I've worn it every day since then, and it's cost me the price of 2 batteries (£4 each), and o-ring for the case back (25p), and a new strap last year (£14 for a Seiko genuine black nylon to replace the totally knackered stainless bracelet). It keeps accurate to a few seconds per month.

I don't see why anyone would need to buy anything else if all they want is a watch that does timekeeping.

If all you want is a watch for timekeeping, then I'd say that you are right. You wouldn't buy anything more expensive than a timex or a seiko.

If you're looking for something that has a unique style, heritage, craftsmanship that can't be found in a cheaper watch, you'll spend the extra money and pay for a luxury item.

I'd have to disagree with your 'unique style' comment, many of the top end watches have similar looking models in their range, or models that hark back to classic designs.
I'm not even sure I'd agree with the craftsmanship comment either, you only have to look at the threads on most watch forums asking for advice when people encounter problems with their watches.
Note the recent threads on here on Omega strap pins breaking, not something I'd expect on a watch that costs £2k!

It reminds me about a thread in the old P&P about toasters and a few posters trying to justify spending well over £100 on a Dualit toaster, it doesn't make toast any better than a £3 Tescos budget toaster, and when it goes wrong it costs quite a lot more than the price of the cheap toaster to repair. Watches are Similar, some of the expensive premium brand watches are actually not so good at telling the time as some cheap watches, and the cost of maintenance or repair is often more than the cost of many a cheaper watch!
I think , like many 'premium' brands, it's all about buying into the image.

When I'm talking unique styles, i'm referring to brands like franck muller, urweck, Gruebel Forsey, or even the new crazy zenith defy pieces. I tend to think that the majority of these lines are fairly innovative in design and very unique.

As to craftsmanship, is there any doubt that a ferrari has better craftsmanship than a ford taurus? I'd say no, but a ferrari is more likely to go into the shop. Does that mean craftsmanship is inferior? I don't think so. As to the accuracy of cheap watches, for mechanicals, if it's COSC it's COSC and should be within tolerance, if it's not, I'd send it back. for non COSC, the higher cost is likely due to precious stones or quality metals and finishing and attention to detail.

I don't think that it's just image. My IWC has gold numbers vs. gold paint. it's made of gold rather than gold plate. That is quality and craftsmanship and attention to detail that you don't get from Seiko, or even midrange brands.

There is a difference (IMHO), but that doesn't mean that everyone has to buy into those differences having value. That's in the eye of the buyer.

[ShadownINja]

eccles said:

I think , like many 'premium' brands, it's all about buying into the image.

You may be right, but then it renders the analogy of a Ferrari vs a Micra useless.

[eccles]

deejuic said:

eccles said:

deejuic said:

HellDiver said:

My watch is a £120 Seiko quartz chrono (7T32 movement) I bought 17 years ago. I've worn it every day since then, and it's cost me the price of 2 batteries (£4 each), and o-ring for the case back (25p), and a new strap last year (£14 for a Seiko genuine black nylon to replace the totally knackered stainless bracelet). It keeps accurate to a few seconds per month.

I don't see why anyone would need to buy anything else if all they want is a watch that does timekeeping.

If all you want is a watch for timekeeping, then I'd say that you are right. You wouldn't buy anything more expensive than a timex or a seiko.

If you're looking for something that has a unique style, heritage, craftsmanship that can't be found in a cheaper watch, you'll spend the extra money and pay for a luxury item.

I'd have to disagree with your 'unique style' comment, many of the top end watches have similar looking models in their range, or models that hark back to classic designs.
I'm not even sure I'd agree with the craftsmanship comment either, you only have to look at the threads on most watch forums asking for advice when people encounter problems with their watches.
Note the recent threads on here on Omega strap pins breaking, not something I'd expect on a watch that costs £2k!

It reminds me about a thread in the old P&P about toasters and a few posters trying to justify spending well over £100 on a Dualit toaster, it doesn't make toast any better than a £3 Tescos budget toaster, and when it goes wrong it costs quite a lot more than the price of the cheap toaster to repair. Watches are Similar, some of the expensive premium brand watches are actually not so good at telling the time as some cheap watches, and the cost of maintenance or repair is often more than the cost of many a cheaper watch!
I think , like many 'premium' brands, it's all about buying into the image.

When I'm talking unique styles, i'm referring to brands like franck muller, urweck, Gruebel Forsey, or even the new crazy zenith defy pieces. I tend to think that the majority of these lines are fairly innovative in design and very unique.

As to craftsmanship, is there any doubt that a ferrari has better craftsmanship than a ford taurus? I'd say no, but a ferrari is more likely to go into the shop. Does that mean craftsmanship is inferior? I don't think so. As to the accuracy of cheap watches, for mechanicals, if it's COSC it's COSC and should be within tolerance, if it's not, I'd send it back. for non COSC, the higher cost is likely due to precious stones or quality metals and finishing and attention to detail.

I don't think that it's just image. My IWC has gold numbers vs. gold paint. it's made of gold rather than gold plate. That is quality and craftsmanship and attention to detail that you don't get from Seiko, or even midrange brands.

There is a difference (IMHO), but that doesn't mean that everyone has to buy into those differences having value. That's in the eye of the buyer.

Obviously if you start buying watches made of exotic materials it will cost more, and the brands you list above are very top end although with the exception of Zenith may lack a little in the 'heritage' department.These are a large step up from the more mainstream expensive watches like Omegas, rolex etc.
Many of the mainstream expensive watches use generic movements, and watches using these movements can vary hugely in price (discounting the use of exotic materials), and you'll often see comments like 'that's a lot of money for a watch with a valjoux, Eta, etc. movement'.
How would you feel if you found out your precious Ferrari had just broken down and the garage told you it had a Fiat engine in it?

[wigsworld]

[/quote]
Obviously if you start buying watches made of exotic materials it will cost more, and the brands you list above are very top end although with the exception of Zenith may lack a little in the 'heritage' department.These are a large step up from the more mainstream expensive watches like Omegas, rolex etc.
Many of the mainstream expensive watches use generic movements, and watches using these movements can vary hugely in price (discounting the use of exotic materials), and you'll often see comments like 'that's a lot of money for a watch with a valjoux, Eta, etc. movement'.
How would you feel if you found out your precious Ferrari had just broken down and the garage told you it had a Fiat engine in it?
[/quote]

Thats why Rolex is a much better brand than Omega and Brietling etc, they use their own movements, not modified eta's. Also the overall quality is better I think too.

[NJH]

It is a tricky issue really, easy to just associate a brand with a price tag, and sadly a brand image or price with some nonsensical notion of quality. For example you can buy a Seiko for 100 quid or you can buy one more expensive then a Rolex, you can also buy a quartz powered Citizen that costs more then many ppl's monthly salary.

As was said earlier, the price is what it is because punters will pay it, end of, nothing more.

[NJH]

wigsworld said:

I don't think Omega are the brand they used to be. The quality is much better now though and certainly better than Tag Heur and Breitling.

What is your evidence for this quality assessment?