JLC vs. Top Brands

[malkoun1]

Hi everyone,

I have researched the JLC brand extensively, and from what I understand, they are very close to the top of the spectrum with regards to their movements and the fact that they are in-house etc. However, I have found that there is a substantial difference in the price of some of the lower end JLC watches (ex. Master ultra thin) compared to the lower end Patek's (Calatrava), Lange (Saxonia) etc. Does anyone have any explanation as to why this is the case?

[khj94704]

Hi everyone,

I have researched the JLC brand extensively, and from what I understand, they are very close to the top of the spectrum with regards to their movements and the fact that they are in-house etc. However, I have found that there is a substantial difference in the price of some of the lower end JLC watches (ex. Master ultra thin) compared to the lower end Patek's (Calatrava), Lange (Saxonia) etc. Does anyone have any explanation as to why this is the case?

Your answer's right there: the case. JLC's aren't necessarily made of precious metals.

[CitizenM]

JLC has long been one of the most respected movement makers in the world. Some of the legendary exotic brands use their movements (i.e., Vacheron).

Still, there is sort of a prevailing wisdom about what I call the "exotic" brands, and JLCs aren't always considered one of them, perhaps due to their quasi-obtainable price schedule.

Don't get me wrong. I think they should be. I think there as good as any company out there.

But Patek, AP and Vacheron, along with Breguet and A. Lange, are generally ranked among the very top and demand extraordinarily high prices for even their simplest ones, Patek perhaps more than any other (the others focus on ultra-complication mechanical watches, well, besides AP).

So I suppose what I'm saying is, JLC's market position is more the result of perception than some objective failure in quality or design. A good JLC watch is as good, or better, than a watch from basically any other maker.

As an aside, I think Zenith falls into this twilight category as well, between respected luxury brands (Omega and Rolex) and the elite high-end, despite being extremely well respected as movement makers.

Personally, I'd much rather have a JLC than a Patek of comparable complication.

Additionally, as KHJ points out, JLC does most of their line in steel with options for more expensive materials, where often that's not the case on the "exotic" end, you get the gold, platinum etc that they decided to use from the get go across the board.

[hpark21]

JLC master ultra thin in 18K or Plat will probably be similar in price to Patek Calatrava which is only available with those precious metal.

That said, JLC makes watches priced at 1/2 million $$ (and more) as well as more affordable ones as you have mentioned.

[gouverneur]

No idea, other than historical quirk, but the fact that you can pick up quite a few JLC's for under $10,000 while you would be lucky to get a Calatrava for under $18,000 means that it's pretty much the best value in the world of horology. The only other comparable I can think of is Rolex, which even with rapid price increases is still selling an entirely in-house chronometer for around $8,000, which'll get you a Datejust or a Submariner that'll actually hold re-sale value better than a JLC.

I'd say quite a few of the brands that are pricing themselves upstream of JLC are no better. Vacheron and Breguet in particular are shadows of their historical selves. In the end, if you have the disposable income to grab a big name in watches, Patek, JLC, or Rolex would be my picks. AP's most famous watch, the Royal Oak, just doesn't do it for me, and neither do A. Lange's offerings, though I acknowledge that they are one of the finest makers in the world.

[marchone]

The Lange Saxonia is pure sex.

[mleok]

No idea, other than historical quirk, but the fact that you can pick up quite a few JLC's for under $10,000 while you would be lucky to get a Calatrava for under $18,000 means that it's pretty much the best value in the world of horology. The only other comparable I can think of is Rolex, which even with rapid price increases is still selling an entirely in-house chronometer for around $8,000, which'll get you a Datejust or a Submariner that'll actually hold re-sale value better than a JLC.

I'd say quite a few of the brands that are pricing themselves upstream of JLC are no better. Vacheron and Breguet in particular are shadows of their historical selves. In the end, if you have the disposable income to grab a big name in watches, Patek, JLC, or Rolex would be my picks. AP's most famous watch, the Royal Oak, just doesn't do it for me, and neither do A. Lange's offerings, though I acknowledge that they are one of the finest makers in the world.

Patek is essentially the Rolex of high end watches, in the sense that they have instant name recognition, offer a high-quality product, command a price premium, and have excellent resale value. Historically, the big three watch brands have been Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, and Audemars Piguet.

Vacheron has fallen in the estimation of WIS, in part because it is no longer independent, and is a part of the Richemont group. Richemont however seems to be pretty good about cultivating, and developing the independence of each of their brands, and I think they have done an excellent job with Vacheron, Lange, and JLC. Another thing is that of the big three watch companies, Vacheron was the last to get onboard the in-house movement craze, so for example, the movement in my Vacheron Overseas is based on a JLC 889 ebauche. However, I feel that Vacheron is on the upswing and reclaiming its ground.

Audemars feels like a one trick pony at times, with the overwhelming dominance of the Royal Oak and Royal Oak Offshore lines. To me, the endless color combination variants in limited edition ROOs cheapens the brand image, and it reminds me too much of Hublot. It is still independent, but I feel that Vacheron has a much more interesting line of watches for my taste.

JLC has historically been known for their expertise in movements, having supplied ebauches to Patek, Vacheron, and Audemars. JLC has been acquired by numerous companies at various times in its history, so as to tap into their movement expertise. So, for example, Audemars once owned JLC, but retains rights to the 212 movement (which is a JLC design) that is used in their Royal Oak Jumbo 15202.

In recent years, they have released watches that are truly tour de forces of movement design, in the form of the gyrotourbillon, spherotourbillon, and the Reverso Triptyque. In terms of prestige, they are below the likes of Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, Lange, and Breguet. They make exceptional movements, but their level of finishing is perhaps a bit lower than the top tier of high-end watches. What makes them particularly affordable is the fact that their dress watches are available in stainless steel, whereas the top tier exclusively makes their dress watches in precious metals.

[mleok]

If you want a dress watch in precious metals, then the prices become a bit more comparable. A gold JLC Master Ultrathin is about $13K MSRP, which is comparable to a Breguet Classique Manual Wind in gold. The Vacheron Constantin Patrimony Grand Taille is about $18K, and the Lange Saxonia manual wind is about the same price. The Patek 5119 is a step up at about $21K.

If you don't mind stainless steel, then JLC will offer much more complicated watches at the $10K range. For that level of MSRP, you could get something from JLC with one of the following complications: 8 day power reserve, a chronograph, a mechanical alarm, two timezones, or dual faces.

[Watchbreath]

"Vacheron has fallen", I don't recall voting on that one.

Patek is essentially the Rolex of high end watches, in the sense that they have instant name recognition, offer a high-quality product, command a price premium, and have excellent resale value. Historically, the big three watch brands have been Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, and Audemars Piguet.

Vacheron has fallen in the estimation of WIS, in part because it is no longer independent, and is a part of the Richemont group. Richemont however seems to be pretty good about cultivating, and developing the independence of each of their brands, and I think they have done an excellent job with Vacheron, Lange, and JLC. Another thing is that of the big three watch companies, Vacheron was the last to get onboard the in-house movement craze, so for example, the movement in my Vacheron Overseas is based on a JLC 889 ebauche. However, I feel that Vacheron is on the upswing and reclaiming its ground.

Audemars feels like a one trick pony at times, with the overwhelming dominance of the Royal Oak and Royal Oak Offshore lines. To me, the endless color combination variants in limited edition ROOs cheapens the brand image, and it reminds me too much of Hublot. It is still independent, but I feel that Vacheron has a much more interesting line of watches for my taste.

JLC has historically been known for their expertise in movements, having supplied ebauches to Patek, Vacheron, and Audemars. JLC has been acquired by numerous companies at various times in its history, so as to tap into their movement expertise. So, for example, Audemars once owned JLC, but retains rights to the 212 movement (which is a JLC design) that is used in their Royal Oak Jumbo 15202.

In recent years, they have released watches that are truly tour de forces of movement design, in the form of the gyrotourbillon, spherotourbillon, and the Reverso Triptyque. In terms of prestige, they are below the likes of Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, Lange, and Breguet. They make exceptional movements, but their level of finishing is perhaps a bit lower than the top tier of high-end watches. What makes them particularly affordable is the fact that their dress watches are available in stainless steel, whereas the top tier exclusively makes their dress watches in precious metals.

[mleok]

"Vacheron has fallen", I don't recall voting on that one.

Well, it has in the sense that it used to be considered superior to Patek, but that's quite a while ago. In recent years, the trajectory has been much more positive.