WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Which Watch Brands Belong in the High-End Forum? Which Ones Do Not?

185K views 656 replies 154 participants last post by  WTSP 
#1 ·
doesn't it seem like there are certain brands that are brought up here, but should not be?

is TAG Heuer a "high-end" watch? i like omega, but is it "high-end"? i have an IWC, but i don't think i would consider it high-end.

i wouldn't expect any arguing about Lange or Patek. any others?

just interested to see what brands people think belong or don't belong here.
 
#58 ·
I think there should be a simple criterion that is beyond dispute. I propose that if it costs
more than $5000 then by definition it is "high end". I invite argument about the amount ($10K, $20k??). But really, at the end of the day it is about how much the piece cost. I say this knowing that none of my watches meet my criterion. Maybe we should reduce it to $3000, in which case inam in the game. :-d
 
#60 ·
Personally, I don't think you can go on price either. Casio has watches in the $3,000 range. Rolex has watches that range from $3,000 to $100,000+... so price is not a good indicator of high-end (manufacturer) - at least my definition of high-end. That said I think we should all just agree that there's no universal definition of high-end... it means different things to different people.
 
#63 ·
The brands that defy price standards are Zenith and Nomos. It is hard to call some over-priced watches high end while pretending Primeros are not.

If this forum has proven anything since it was founded, it is that there is no easy, objective standard for defining high end watches.

...that and some people define high end based on the most expensive watch they can afford, so they feel superior to as many people as possible =)
 
#64 ·
if we throw out price, what makes Audemars Piguet and Hublot High End? i like some of their watches, but other than price, i don't know what makes them superior. aren't most of their movements pretty standard?

i think price has to be a factor, but not the only one. i think of high price and true manufacturer.
 
#65 ·
clarencek said:
Personally, I don't think you can go on price either. Casio has watches in the $3,000 range. Rolex has watches that range from $3,000 to $100,000+... so price is not a good indicator of high-end (manufacturer) - at least my definition of high-end. That said I think we should all just agree that there's no universal definition of high-end... it means different things to different people.
So if casio made a really good $5000 watch, why wouldn't they qualify? The only reason would be a stereotype based on the name. Here in America we call that "prejudice".

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
 
#70 ·
So if casio made a really good $5000 watch, why wouldn't they qualify? The only reason would be a stereotype based on the name. Here in America we call that "prejudice".
It's not prejudice, it's differing definitions of high-end. For those who think price is the criteria for high-end... that's fine. Anyone who makes a watch over $5,000 is high-end... OK. Then basically almost every Swiss brand is high-end, not to mention a number of Asian brands.

My definition is different and includes exclusivity and a commitment to the art and history. Sure a lot of that is marketing, but that's just my definition. And admit, even my own criteria doesn't stand up everywhere... as I don't consider Panerai high-end - yes, they do only manufacture low-numbers, and have a long, interesting history in the industry.
 
#66 ·
thats why it is an "if." If casio was able to pull off some bs marketing and make their own in house movement, then yeah...the 5k casio would be consider a high end. Beyond price, it is also about market segment as well. The brand must be targeted towards the upper class. But I can't really visualize a brand that covers from $20-$100,000. I highly doubt that anyone would be interested in such a brand.

On a same note, seiko is trying to tap into the luxury market with their grand seikos. It seems that while some people take their japanese movement seriously, most watch lovers just laugh at their futile attempt. Despite their superior movement and "real" history(yes, real history..not some fabricated fairy tales like jacquet droz), no one really seems to consider them highend. Just on movement alone, they are far superior to a Rolex or an IWC(ETA ones). Heck, I would place them on the same level with JLC. But no one considers them highend.

As aforementioned, marketing does matter. Price matters. It is mostly about image marketing. And most people are suckers for this kinda stuff. I know I am.
 
#67 ·
:-( Groooan
thats why it is an "if." If casio was able to pull off some bs marketing and make their own in house movement, then yeah...the 5k casio would be consider a high end. Beyond price, it is also about market segment as well. The brand must be targeted towards the upper class. But I can't really visualize a brand that covers from $20-$100,000. I highly doubt that anyone would be interested in such a brand.

On a same note, seiko is trying to tap into the luxury market with their grand seikos. It seems that while some people take their japanese movement seriously, most watch lovers just laugh at their futile attempt. Despite their superior movement and "real" history(yes, real history..not some fabricated fairy tales like jacquet droz), no one really seems to consider them highend. Just on movement alone, they are far superior to a Rolex or an IWC(ETA ones). Heck, I would place them on the same level with JLC. But no one considers them highend.

As aforementioned, marketing does matter. Price matters. It is mostly about image marketing. And most people are suckers for this kinda stuff. I know I am.
 
#68 ·
How about a score range system based on a simple formula to determine high End? -

Example system could be positive points for yes and minus points for no with categories such as -

In house movement
Case manufacture
Number of complications with a grading system for the degree of complication (hours minutes and seconds are a given requirement for base scoring - the rest are complication additions)
Size of watch (maybe obvious but to get 10 complications in a 30mm case is harder than 5 complications in a 50mm case?)
Fit and finish etc

Things not to be included -

Material of case
Strap material
Clasp type etc

Just some ideas and over to the more technically minded to suggest the categories and scoring system

This negates the 'history' arguments and also marketing hype/budgets. Let the watch be judged on its own merits and see what everyone feels

Can of worms suitably opened

Mark
 
#73 ·
Another few categories to my previous list could be -

Technological advances (materials used etc - perhaps UN take this category?)
Awards won
Patents registered etc

I understand its not easy but to set a standard there has to be benchmarks

On that note - in house movement is a big deal and worth noting (IMO). Otherwise you are merely a case maker and/or watch assembler and NOT A WATCH MAKER per se
 
#78 ·
What if Ferrari realised its technological limitation, and started fitting AMG V8 MB engine with or without superchargers and in different levels of tuning??
Inhouse is not such a definite thing. I think some manufacturers use movements made by other High End Manufactures?
In the past, PP and JLC supplied moements to others.

Does that make them NOT High End?
 
#80 ·
I haven't expressed my full opinion, which is apparently dangerous in such a volatile climate. I had planned on writing much more in depth at a later date and will do so next week. For the time being, however, I will say that being a manufacture is not the be-all-end-all, as, yes, there are notable exceptions such as Thomas Prescher & Peter Speake Marin. However, having the capability to make your own in-house movement or the ability to heavily modify a base ebauche really differentiates yourself from the ordinary.

What is really needed is a hierarchical approach to classification with both inclusion and exclusion features. I'll discuss this at a later date, as it relates to my work as a Psychiatrist and making diagnoses based on pattern of symptoms. If readers are familiar with the DSM then you are already familiar with that I will discuss.

One last thing, Janne, about Ferrari switching to AMG-based engines due to technological limitations...then my friend, I would then suppose that we would have a new big kid on the block to deal with, with Ferrari abdicating its status as the top dog.
 
#79 ·
Luxury specialist?
 
#82 ·
I'll second (or third? or fourth? or four thousandth?) the motion that there should be no need to label an entire brand as high-end or not. Let each watch qualify independently.

I also agree that price is irrelevant to the determination. If the watch is high-end, it will usually command a high price, but it does not have to. Similarly, having a high price does not automatically make the watch high end.

Furthermore, a movement does not have to be "in-house" per se, in order to be high-end, nor does being in-house (like a Seiko 7S26) automatically make a movement high-end. A hand assembled movement, of the highest quality, complication, and decoration will naturally be limited in production due to the limited number of watchmakers skilled enough to make them. If it is a different company that contributes the case and dial, that does not change the quality of the movement (but that case and dial better be of the highest quality too). If I were judging, I would award bonus points for having the highest percentage of parts designed, fabricated, and assembled in-house, but that is not 100% necessary.
 
#83 ·
Was only offering suggestions for categories thats all

I was not stating that they were fixed and final

Had to give a starting point so mentioned in house as a good base (no pun intended)

In the absence of any further positive suggestions its difficult to define criteria

Its the easiest thing in the world to pick points against something suggested. Takes more to come back with positive suggestive response rather than petty nit picking?
 
#85 ·
Little did I imagine that this would get so over-heated. Lighten up, guys!
 
#86 ·
No problem for me

Only adding to my original observations and comments

Will hold back if i am offending anyone?

For all the sit on the have a go at my comment gang - what does constitute a high end element then?

Answers on a forum please to ..................................
 
#88 ·
Haha point taken

Must be my Englishness coming through?

I am open to any and all answers and dont mean any offence to anyone at all

Just misunderstood i guess?

Must get into the 'forum spirit and way of thinking'?
 
#89 ·
no no. i think everything is fine. people do tend to get too sensitive. i think that since there is no true definition of a high end watch it is nice to read all of the different views.

JLC is high-end, Blancpain is luxury, Hublot is fashion.
 
#90 ·
Ok then

In the absence of a true agenda and system how about a simple poll?

Person offers name of brand and receives positive and negative points according to members assumptions of the brand

The results are taken over a given time scale (to allow fair representation) and collated to give either a yes or no verdict. This is the same for ALL brands nominated

The winners stay in the 'high end' bracket and the losers are never mentioned again with the brand proposer banished forever (maybe a little harsh the last bit so can be modified to suit)

Any better than my original attempt? Or has this been done previously and i am raking over old ground?

Mark
 
#91 ·
@budhudson... As much as your proposal sounds great, there seems to be a slight problem. The problem is that not all watch brands have the same number of followers. My prediction is that brands like OMega and Rolex will be voted as high ends while brands like JLC will have few votes. Afterall, you cant really say that people arent biased. So I am afraid the poll wont be fair. A better idea would be to take poll on what is the most valued aspect of a watch. Then using that criteria, we can assign points to all models from a brand. After gathering all the points of models, then we can average it out.(excluding anomalies ofcourse) Then perhaps that score might be somewhat of an accurate representation of the brand.
 
#92 ·
That seems like a fair suggestion and i second the motion to action this

Like i said before, my ideas were based on thought at the time and in retrospect were good in principal but probably not in practice

Let the polling/voting begin
 
#93 ·
This has been an interesting thread, but I don't really see the point of trying to define "high-end"... it's like asking which cheese is the cheesiest... it's completely subjective. But if you create a poll, I'll certainly weigh in. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alysandir
#96 ·
If you have the determination to read this long post and follow ups, I think you will gain another perspective on how to tackle this categorization problem. I will post in 3 parts due to time considerations: an introduction to concepts, a proposed criteria, and case-based discussion.

Part I. Introduction to concepts


While there have been many suggestions of individual criteria and many attempts to sort brands into categories, it is obviously apparent that there is no consensus thus far. However, as a psychiatrist by trade, I can see a very nice solution that follows our Diagnostic of Statistic Manual (DSM). Briefly, the way we use the DSM to make psychiatric diagnoses is based on a hierarchy of criteria that includes both including and excluding features.
For example to define a Major Depressive Episode (MDE):

  1. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.
    1. depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.
    2. markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others).
    3. significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains.
    4. (4) insomnia or hypersomia nearly every day.
    5. psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down).
    6. fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day.
    7. feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick).
    8. diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).
    9. recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide.
  2. The symptoms do not meet criteria for a Mixed Episode.
  3. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
  4. The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse) or a general medical condition (e.g., hypothyroidism).
  5. The symptoms are not better accounted for by Bereavement, i.e., after the loss of a loved one, the symptoms persist for longer than 2 months or are characterized by marked functional impairment, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation.

In this real example, you can see that there are Criteria A to F (EDIT: A-F does not display correctly. Please refer to the left-most numbers as Criteria A-F). These criteria are hierarchical in that you must satisfy preceding criteria. For example while many may experience several symptoms from Criterion B, in order to meet the definition of MDE you must have Criterion A symptoms (which makes sense as how can one diagnose a DME without depressed mood?). In Criteron B, there are SEVERAL inclusive symptoms which must be met concurrently; in this case, 5 criteria are necessary for a diagnosis. This is done so that we can increase the specificity or our diagnosis. In Criteria C-F, there are exclusionary symptoms which helps to ensure that we are indeed looking at a psychiatric unipolar depression and not a depression due to other etiologies.

But before I begin I want to make certain that there is indeed a difference between what we are calling "high-end" from "luxury" BRANDS, and it is this distinction that we are trying to define. Perhaps the best way to view this is via a car analogy, whereby we will divide some brands into "luxury" and "exotics". I think that without much argument, we can place such brands like BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi within the luxury segment, and place brands such as Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Bugatti in the exotic category. While there are two obviously distinct groups, the question now remains as to why do we perceive these brands as they are? More specifically, what are the qualities that we value and hence make our judgments from?

You should notice that I have specifically emphasized "brands" as the topic of debate and have not adopted the sorting timepieces by an individual basis. My rationale is derived from the concept of brand dilution. Take for example, Toyota and Lexus. Now in this case, the parent company Toyota had realized that the brand name "Toyota" is associated with several characteristics such as economy, value-for-dollar, reliability and ubiquity. Thus, from a marketing standpoint, if Toyota were to create a pure luxury vehicle they would have a hard time convincing the market audience that it was one given Toyota's reputation as an economy vehicle. As a result, to facilitate the public's acceptance, Lexus was created. The point is, even if Toyota created the most powerful, fastest and quickest car in the world, it would still be a Toyota with associated connotations. This is true for other cars, such as the Nissan GT-R; no doubt that there is phenomenal performance that meets or exceeds the capability of a Porsche 911 but again, at the end of the day, it is still a Nissan.

Moving on, this thread has served a good purpose in flushing out those qualities that we value/devalue. A quick list I tabulated from the many posts include history, cost, degree of mechanical innovation or complication, design, public awareness, limited production, machine vs. hand finishing and quality of, targeted market and in-house vs. outsourced movements.

Alone these criteria are over-inclusive, which means that they need to be combined in some form to be specific. Again, back to my Depression example, many of us have felt depressed but not to the point of true clinical depression where it is a mental health disorder requiring intervention.

I will post Part 2 sometime next week.
 
#99 ·
Just to make this discussion even more fun...

What about vintage watches? Obviously, using price as a criterion means none of them are high end. I guess we could inflation adjust them. But many were sold in different currencies, some of which don't exist now.
If we are going to use price as part of the definition of high end, someone is going to need to write a dissertation on valuing defunct currencies =)

Vintage watches also show the perils of judging a watch by brand. For example, consider a 1960s Longines. Today, few of the watches made under the Longines brand come close to qualifying as high end by any of the standards discussed.
But those of us familiar with their history recognize that many of the vintage ones do. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see people argue that watches from current high end "brands" were NOT high end 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

Or we could just drop price and brand, and judge each watch on its own merits and workmanship...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top