# Quality of Grand Seiko compared to JLC, GP, and the 'Big Three' ....



## Techniec (Dec 9, 2007)

Dears,

As I am unaware of any (physical) store in my vicinity stocking Grand Seiko, please could you answer my following query: in the steel, how does Grand Seiko compare to top tier brands mentioned in the topic title ? My guess would be favorably, if pictures like this are anything to go by (sourced from WWW):



Again, I have never handled a GS in the steel, but the pictures I have found on forums like WUS convey so much detail, that I suspect that they are finished to an even higher degree than (at least entry level) JLC and GP and the likes .... perhaps even on par with the big three / four (PP, AP, VC, ALS) ?? Appreciate your input, as these watches have really grabbed my attention, however I would be very hesitant to put down this kind of $$$ on a watch that I have never handled physically (come to think of it, even on online portals like Chrono24, they seem to be a rarity) ....

Many thanks and BR,

Pieter


----------



## Jazzmaster (Apr 23, 2011)

You may want to check out the April 2012 issue of Watch Time, which includes an informative article on Grand Seiko (a free pdf of the article is available on the WT website). 

Here's how the article begins...


"Last fall I made back-to-back reporting trips, first to Japan, then to Switzerland. On the Swiss trip, in a meeting with a prominent CEO of a Swiss watch brand,
the subject of Japanese watches came up. Unprompted, he declared 'Seiko makes the best mechanical watch in the world. I hate to say it, but it’s true.' He
was referring to the Grand Seiko, a luxury mechanical watch that Seiko has produced in Japan for 52 years for the Japanese market.

Two days later, in a conversation about my travels with the technical director of another Swiss watch firm, he said, unprompted, 'I would love to have
a Grand Seiko.'"


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

I think GS quality is every bit as good as their Swiss counterparts, they just have a different emphasis. To me, the GS is about everyday functional beauty, where many higher end Swiss makers seem to be more interested in making more complicated and ornate or dressy looking watches. As a common man, I can identify with this practical yet beautiful style more than I can Breguet, Patek, ALS, etc. In a way, I think the design essence of GS is a bit like Rolex used to be before all all of their gold laden and bejeweled glitzy offerings. Simple beautiful quality with world class movements.


----------



## PatagoniaDan (Aug 20, 2012)

mpalmer said:


> I think GS quality is every bit as good as their Swiss counterparts, they just have a different emphasis. To me, the GS is about everyday functional beauty, where many higher end Swiss makers seem to be more interested in making more complicated and ornate or dressy looking watches. As a common man, I can identify with this practical yet beautiful style more than I can Breguet, Patek, ALS, etc. In a way, I think the design essence of GS is a bit like Rolex used to be before all all of their gold laden and bejeweled glitzy offerings. Simple beautiful quality with world class movements.


Well said.


----------



## renovar (Oct 7, 2013)

Nothing against a Grand Seiko or an Ananta, I actually like those designs very much and have a lot of respect for those who made those choices who are obviously knows watches.

But I think there is something romantic and charming about having a well-designed swiss watch. Not sure how to describe it.


----------



## AndrewSo (Mar 1, 2010)

Jazzmaster said:


> "Last fall I made back-to-back reporting trips, first to Japan, then to Switzerland. On the Swiss trip, in a meeting with a prominent CEO of a Swiss watch brand,
> the subject of Japanese watches came up. Unprompted, he declared 'Seiko makes the best mechanical watch in the world. I hate to say it, but it's true.' He
> was referring to the Grand Seiko, a luxury mechanical watch that Seiko has produced in Japan for 52 years for the Japanese market.
> 
> ...


That doesn't surprise me. Anyone that appreciates dedication to masterful technical design has to give props to Grand Seiko. The preference for high-end Swiss (and German) usually comes down to the more romantic aspects of a brand such as history and prestige. Plus, many are turned off by Seiko's minimal aesthetics.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Grand seikos are finished to a level that you need to handle to really appreciate. I own some pretty nice Swiss and German timepieces and none are finished even close to the same level. When I bought mine it was between the gs and a jlc master ultra thin. I went to handle both. The gs was nicer imo. They represent the best value in the under 10k segment.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## fenderjapan (Nov 1, 2013)

The Japanese make the some of the best cars and guitars so it doesn't surprise me that they would make some of the best watches.


----------



## PriceIsRight (Sep 7, 2011)

Wearing my GS as I type this.








The fit and finish of GS watches is unmatched. Really high quality -- feels solid and everything fits and moves the way it should.

I sought out a number of dealers to try on watches before or ordered mine from Higuchi. I will say that on the whole they wear a bit smaller than Swiss watches and are more conservative to look at (less wow/bling sort of impact). For example -- I find mine to be the most legible watch ice ever worn, but while I love the look it doesn't make may heart go pitted patter like some other more striking watches do.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

I love the philosophy behind GrandSeiko design and i really love that very GrandSeiko Hi-Beat with the blue second hand above. My all time grail. I so want it one day...


----------



## hawkeyes (Aug 21, 2011)

Grand Seiko is a top notch brand. I will put it above JLC, GO, IWC and Panerai. The pros of GS are (I) In house movement with 72 hours power reserve, (ii) High accuracy as it is adjusted in six positions vs five positions for most Swiss made watches, (iii) the detailing on the hour and minute hands are amazing (I will say above what you find in VC, Breguet), (iv) the dial is extremely well made, and (v) the quality of the case is the best I have seen (you can tell by the reflection on the case). The cons are (I) the design is very conservative, 60's like and unlikely to turn heads, and (ii) lack of matte and polish tones on case. 

If you are looking to make a statement with pedigree, it would definitely be the PP, ALS, VC etc but if you are looking to go stealth with a conservative look, top notch movement, accuracy and lighter impact on wallet, then it has to be GS. GS to PP would be the equivalent of the Acura to BMW.


----------



## Longjean (Jun 30, 2012)

fenderjapan said:


> The Japanese make the some of the best cars and guitars so it doesn't surprise me that they would make some of the best watches.


Not the only grand things that they make, don't forget about their superb pianos.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Dollar for dollar the GS is a better watch than practically any other company makes. However, for me one would be more or less a novelty in my collection. I don't mean that in a pejorative way just that is would only be there to represent what level of finishing and quality of movement can be had at a price point. I say this since not a single one of the GS pieces move me near as much as dozens of Swiss/German pieces at or below the GS price point. The Japanese do pragmatism well in watches as in cars. The Germans and Swiss do desire in watches and with watches I am mush more a desire person since I don't really need a watch to know what time it is.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

You have to hold GS in the hand to really appreciate it. I would like to add one in my collection one day but I can't agree with the finish being above JLC and the likes. You can get me to say just as good but I can't say above. Maybe i could of before i held a few new Reverso models right after seeing some GS in the city the other weekend.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

I would say Grand Seikos are absolutely the best "basic" mechanical watches in the world (basic meaning without additional complications beyond date), regardles of price (and they are IMHO quite reasonably priced in comparison with what Swiss or German watchmakers would charge you for a watch of similar quality). 
Swiss (and German) watchmakers however excels in adding all sorts of complications.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

i've never handled a watch from the top three brands, but I've handled a GS, and it was definitely better than my omega AT8500, which I put better than my rolex and pam that I had. There is just something about how perfect it was, how clean the lines were, and how sharp and reflective the indices were, which contrasted with the soft glowing dial. 


The only thing holding me back was the fact that the design wasn't quite as sexy as the cheaper aqua terra, and i like being sexy


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

Their dial work is to die for, but the finishing of the bracelet will be nowhere compared to your VC Overseas. GS's movement finishing also tends to be workman-like (their philosophy of best practical watch, perhaps?); definitely no labour-intensive embellishments like anglage, and chamfering for the screw and jewel holes, which are de rigeur for some high-end brands. But, as someone else says, it's good value for money....


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

here's mine...its just beautiful





















and here's some pics of the GS with some other pieces


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

Not sure about that comparison. I think there is quite a bit of difference in technology and philosophy between Acura and BMW, and Acura is not on the forefront, while GS, especially the spring drive, is.


hawkeyes said:


> Grand Seiko is a top notch brand. I will put it above JLC, GO, IWC and Panerai. The pros of GS are (I) In house movement with 72 hours power reserve, (ii) High accuracy as it is adjusted in six positions vs five positions for most Swiss made watches, (iii) the detailing on the hour and minute hands are amazing (I will say above what you find in VC, Breguet), (iv) the dial is extremely well made, and (v) the quality of the case is the best I have seen (you can tell by the reflection on the case). The cons are (I) the design is very conservative, 60's like and unlikely to turn heads, and (ii) lack of matte and polish tones on case.
> 
> If you are looking to make a statement with pedigree, it would definitely be the PP, ALS, VC etc but if you are looking to go stealth with a conservative look, top notch movement, accuracy and lighter impact on wallet, then it has to be GS. GS to PP would be the equivalent of the Acura to BMW.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> Dollar for dollar the GS is a better watch than practically any other company makes. However, for me one would be more or less a novelty in my collection. I don't mean that in a pejorative way just that is would only be there to represent what level of finishing and quality of movement can be had at a price point. I say this since not a single one of the GS pieces move me near as much as dozens of Swiss/German pieces at or below the GS price point. The Japanese do pragmatism well in watches as in cars. The Germans and Swiss do desire in watches and with watches I am mush more a desire person since I don't really need a watch to know what time it is.


I'm essentially at this point. There's just something about the German and the Swiss watches that appeals to me, on a basic level. maybe it's their presence in our culture (Bond, moon landing, Cousteau, Bauhaus movement, sports, etc.)&#8230; maybe it's because there's something inherent in their aesthetic that I simple prefer - for indescribable reasons. I don't know. But I hear what you're saying.

Perhaps I just need to _see_ more Grand Seikos in person. But when I have a couple thousand to spend on a watch - I immediately think watches like an Omega, a Rolex, a Tudor, or a Nomos. And I've come close with GS - there's just something missing, to my eye, and I don't know what it is. I'd love to have one in my collection - but it certainly doesn't have the same draw, as say, a No Date Submariner, or a Speedmaster Professional&#8230;.


----------



## Totoro66 (Oct 26, 2013)

Longjean said:


> Not the only grand things that they make, don't forget about their superb pianos.


and don't forget about manga and anime, like My Neighbor Totoro.


----------



## H2KA (Apr 17, 2010)

shoen said:


> Their dial work is to die for, but the finishing of the bracelet will be nowhere compared to your VC Overseas. GS's movement finishing also tends to be workman-like (their philosophy of best practical watch, perhaps?); definitely no labour-intensive embellishments like anglage, and chamfering for the screw and jewel holes, which are de rigeur for some high-end brands. But, as someone else says, it's good value for money....


+1


----------



## renovar (Oct 7, 2013)

Another word about finishing is the movement decoration. Pictures worth thousand words.

A typical GS display back:


Take a look at a couple top end swiss stainless steel sports pieces with display backs:


















EDIT: Pictures not mine.


----------



## woodsworth (Apr 26, 2011)

To add to renovar's post, here is a shot of the cal. 2121 by AP-


----------



## renovar (Oct 7, 2013)

And since someone mentioned VC overseas... This is not even a display back case, but note the level of finishing.


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

Well, here are pics of my (now gone) top of the line GS (Of course, there are higher end Seikos - Credor):




Movement is VERY well finished as well, look at the edges of the bridge and how well polished they are. The chamfering of the jewel slot is very well done.
IMHO It looks better finished (not necessarily better decorated) than the VC movement as above. It just may be me, so please do not take any offence.


----------



## Nokie (Jul 4, 2011)

I have two GS and their quality is at least equal to if not exceeding that of my Rolex and JLC. 

However, most of their designs tend to be more basic or low-key/not-flashy, and it can give the impression that they are more minimal in quality, which IMHO is not correct.

They are awesome watches, not something you see everyday, and for a mechanical, they are the most accurate watches I own.


----------



## Totoro66 (Oct 26, 2013)

Nokie said:


> I have two GS and their quality is at least equal to if not exceeding that of my Rolex and JLC.
> 
> However, most of their designs tend to be more basic or low-key/not-flashy, and it can give the impression that they are more minimal in quality, which IMHO is not correct.
> 
> They are awesome watches, not something you see everyday, and for a mechanical, they are the most accurate watches I own.


So maybe someone at Seiko should think of upping the decorations to make it more attractive. There is clearly room for improvement.


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

I have owned a JLC Master Hometime and a GS 130th Anniversary.

Both companies adopt very different design philosophies, the JLC case has more curves while the GS is angular. 
I would say they are pretty much on par in terms of quality.
From a design perspective (not quality), the JLC dial has more depth but the GS has better indices and hands, mixing both brushed and polished surfaces that looks very attractive when it catches and reflect light

















Once again you could see the difference in design philosophies in the movement, the GS has very technical feel to its finish while the JLC is decorated with blue screws etc

















The only quality issue I noted with the GS the gap between the lugs and the bracelet. Look at the top right lug in the first photo of the GS, that gap revealing the springbar is not something I would expect for a watch at this price.

I would buy a JLC again in a heartbeat but I cannot say the same for the GS, the design is just too sterile and leaves me cold.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

The only reason the GS movements don't look as 'nice' as the Swiss versions of the same caliber is because Seiko don't plate everything in gold/whatever. They're left as steel, because that's the GS ethos. 'Best basic.' If you look at any GS movement under magnification, you will see the cotes de geneve, cutting, arrising, beveling and countersinking is second to none. Why don't they use blue screws? Why would they? The blued coloured screws of today have nothing to do with the reasons it was done in yester-year. There is nothing in a GS that is pretending to be something it isn't. I guarantee if the rotor was coloured bronze instead this wouldn't even be a discussion.


----------



## woodsworth (Apr 26, 2011)

Domo said:


> The only reason the GS movements don't look as 'nice' as the Swiss versions of the same caliber is because Seiko don't plate everything in gold/whatever. They're left as steel, because that's the GS ethos. 'Best basic.' If you look at any GS movement under magnification, you will see the cotes de geneve, cutting, arrising, beveling and countersinking is second to none. Why don't they use blue screws? Why would they? The blued coloured screws of today have nothing to do with the reasons it was done in yester-year. There is nothing in a GS that is pretending to be something it isn't. I guarantee if the rotor was coloured bronze instead this wouldn't even be a discussion.


Great for their price point, yes, but certainly not second to none.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

mn85 said:


> Great for their price point, yes, but certainly not second to none.


You may be right. I phrased that poorly. I have no experience even handling watches worth over the $15k mark or there abouts. But I hope you see where I'm coming from. Plating goes against the GS ethos is what I'm trying to say. The gold medallion on high beat VFA's (or 'specials') is gold because it's solid gold, affixed to the rotor. I personally like the GS solid case back with the lion emblem on it, but all the nice models i'm looking at have a display back. Theoretically even that goes against the ethos, but I guess customers have come to expect a display back on a watch that price.


----------



## woodsworth (Apr 26, 2011)

Domo said:


> You may be right. I phrased that poorly. I have no experience even handling watches worth over the $15k mark or there abouts. But I hope you see where I'm coming from. Plating goes against the GS ethos is what I'm trying to say. The gold medallion on high beat VFA's (or 'specials') is gold because it's solid gold, affixed to the rotor. I personally like the GS solid case back with the lion emblem on it, but all the nice models i'm looking at have a display back. Theoretically even that goes against the ethos, but I guess customers have come to expect a display back on a watch that price.


I agree. I'd prefer if most Grand Seikos had the solid case back, like the sbgw033, since they are sticking to the company's original utilitarian philosophy (which I have nothing against). I guess, without trying to sound elitist, I have more appreciation for companies who have the audacity to utilize solid case backs if something "truly special" isn't under the hood. Not to mention, most watches would be thinner.


----------



## wuyeah (Apr 24, 2007)

I love Seiko and agree GS bring their movement quality to another level BUT Grand Seiko lost me by external design. To me, GS designs don't feel unique. They are not icon to the Seiko brand and easily forgotten. I want someone to spot and recognize a Grand Seiko without reading the dial. Which it is the main reason that I have not yet own a GS. I buy my watch first, by look. Then, I judge the quality.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

It seems that it isn't just me and Seiko might sell more, maybe a lot more, GS if they took some cues from the Europeans regarding design. The Japanese did it with cars, maybe it is time for watches.


----------



## hawkeyes (Aug 21, 2011)

cabfrank said:


> Not sure about that comparison. I think there is quite a bit of difference in technology and philosophy between Acura and BMW, and Acura is not on the forefront, while GS, especially the spring drive, is.


Yes, I agree that GS is forefront on Spring Drive and also 36,000 beats. I was more referring to comparing the GS automatics to PP automatics. GS has a strong in house movement, very accurate but somewhat lack the design. By the same token PP has a strong design an pedigree to it. Very similar to BMW with the strong sports pedigree and sexier design.


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

hawkeyes said:


> Yes, I agree that GS is forefront on Spring Drive and also 36,000 beats. I was more referring to comparing the GS automatics to PP automatics. GS has a strong in house movement, very accurate but somewhat lack the design. By the same token PP has a strong design an pedigree to it. Very similar to BMW with the strong sports pedigree and sexier design.


PP's finishing on the case back, based on internet images (never seen one in person) is pretty darn amazing. However their designs on the part people will actually see, are pretty conservative and well perfect in their simplicity imo. I'm not sure a 15k GS vs a 50k PP are all that different in the dial details when we're talking solid gold to solid gold. Again never seen these watches in person but from videos and pictures.

And I must said, PP is not some BMW. It's a Rolls Royce, a touch boring but known for their well "perfection". BMW is in the watch world more of a Tag to me.


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

I love my GS watches & Ananta's they are on a different level....they stay true to their culture in watch design and mechanism as due the SWISS. Love them both!


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

As stated earlier, GS's are phenomenally finished but not decorated as the design ethos really is centered around doing the most basic things really well. Geneva stripes or pearlage tend to convey a feeling of quality by drawing attention to the decoration as a means to convey effort on the part of the manufacturer going the extra mile.

For the GS, the plain finish forces you to look closer in order to notice how finely finished the movement is. Also, GS tolerances are legendary, and their precision is bar none the highest in the industry.

9S Mechanical | Grand Seiko | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION

However, that is more a demonstration of technology than 'heart,' 'soul,' and 'passion,' which is what the swiss counterparts excel at marketing to. Expensive purchase decisions like these have to be made by the heart because rationality isn't a good way to make people spend this amount of money


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

mew887028312 said:


> I have owned a JLC Master Hometime and a GS 130th Anniversary.
> 
> Both companies adopt very different design philosophies, the JLC case has more curves while the GS is angular.
> I would say they are pretty much on par in terms of quality.
> ...


Hi mew88. I believe the grand seiko you've shown is the sbgr081. That's the 100th anniversary automatic limited edition. The problem between the lug and bracelet you mentioned is NOT typical. You should return it to GS and have it sorted out. Secondly, I'm not surprised that this particular GS left you cold. It's meant to be a modern interpretation of the 44GS but it's not a very successful one in my opinion. The dark dialled sbgr083 is better but again I have my reservations. Try the 44GS, be it in steel or any of the precious metal variant, and I'm sure you'll change your mind. Cheers!


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

OMG....That is too much GS goodness for just one man. Watchnut12....you are living my dream. You mush have a lot of love to give to be able to share it with all those japanese beauties.


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

lethaltoes said:


> Hi mew88. I believe the grand seiko you've shown is the sbgr081. That's the 100th anniversary automatic limited edition. The problem between the lug and bracelet you mentioned is NOT typical. You should return it to GS and have it sorted out. Secondly, I'm not surprised that this particular GS left you cold. It's meant to be a modern interpretation of the 44GS but it's not a very successful one in my opinion. The dark dialled sbgr083 is better but again I have my reservations. Try the 44GS, be it in steel or any of the precious metal variant, and I'm sure you'll change your mind. Cheers!


It is indeed the 100 years of watchmaking LE, SBGR081. I actually had the chance to view the steel 44GS alongside a SBGM003, the finish and details are great but it just fails to connect to me on an emotional level.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ed21x said:


> However, that is more a demonstration of technology than 'heart,' 'soul,' and 'passion,' which is what the swiss counterparts excel at marketing to. Expensive purchase decisions like these have to be made by the heart because rationality isn't a good way to make people spend this amount of money


To my mind, referencing high production tolerances and technology is no less marketing than referencing, passion, soul, history, or aesthetics - as the Swiss and Germans do (and I'm not sure one is superior to the other). It's all about what the consumer wants. Functionally, I don't see there as being much of a distinction between a purely mechanical Grand Seiko and any other mechanical watch - they're all reasonably reliable and accurate, and none of them are perfect. Spring Drive is another story, of course. But with that - I still feel like it loses _something_ about what makes a mechanical watch special. When I see it - I almost say to myself "If I want a _perfect _watch, why wouldn't I just buy a quartz for a lot less money?"


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Everything a Swiss watch manufacturer does in terms of marketing literature, Seiko does too.

GS standards, manufacture status, blade polishing, history etc etc.
All the same. 

Also, is the GS standards for time-keeping stricter than the one Patek follows?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

mew88 said:


> It is indeed the 100 years of watchmaking LE, SBGR081. I actually had the chance to view the steel 44GS alongside a SBGM003, the finish and details are great but it just fails to connect to me on an emotional level.


It took a while for me to connect with this piece too. I liked it at first for it's finish but the details just grabbed me more and more. Which is a good thing. Here's the watch again for your viewing pleasure. Ha ha.









Also, I've realised that if the traditional aesthetics don't do it for you, there's hope yet. You just have to be patient and wait around for one of those whimsical domestic models GS does from time to time. Those MAY just speak to you more as they offer a less traditional GS aesthetic.









Here's one with stamped numerals and polished to perfection. Akin to what the PP 5196p is like in relation to the standard models.









Lastly, do Google up the GS sbgw021. There are lots of pics of this beauty on the web now cos there's just one for sale. Cheers!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchnut12 (Sep 2, 2013)

Thanks brother! Ya I'm mad for time pieces.. If I could rent a room at Torneau's flag ship store in NY I would..



Domo said:


> OMG....That is too much GS goodness for just one man. Watchnut12....you are living my dream. You mush have a lot of love to give to be able to share it with all those japanese beauties.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Everything a Swiss watch manufacturer does in terms of marketing literature, Seiko does too.
> 
> GS standards, manufacture status, blade polishing, history etc etc.
> All the same.
> ...


No, not for standard mechanical. Patek's standard is -3 ~ +2 seconds a day. GS is -3 ~ +5 seconds. The GS Hi Beat specials are -2 ~ +4, which is only 1 second off PP standard. The Specials are probably a better comparison eye to eye to a Patek anyway because of the precious metal cases.


----------



## anicca (Jun 29, 2012)

just don't like the dial design/layout. why put seiko then grand seiko under it? too redundant for me. for that matter i wish they could have used a different name altogether. kinda like they did with credor.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

anicca said:


> just don't like the dial design/layout. why put seiko then grand seiko under it? too redundant for me. for that matter i wish they could have used a different name altogether. kinda like they did with credor.


I like the Grand Seiko name. But they repeat Seiko one to many times on the dial. Get the 'GS' off the dial, and just have Grand Seiko as it currently is. The 'GS' is on the crown and bracelet buckle anyway. It HAS to have the traditional Seiko logo up the top. Despite all the acheivements the name stands for, it's also just an exceptionally nicely designed wordmark IMO.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

I believe so, because he seikos are adjusted to six positions rather than five positions on the PP, as well as three temperature regimes instead of two on the PP.



drunken monkey said:


> Everything a Swiss watch manufacturer does in terms of marketing literature, Seiko does too.
> 
> GS standards, manufacture status, blade polishing, history etc etc.
> All the same.
> ...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

DustinS said:


> PP's finishing on the case back, based on internet images (never seen one in person) is pretty darn amazing. However their designs on the part people will actually see, are pretty conservative and well perfect in their simplicity imo. I'm not sure a 15k GS vs a 50k PP are all that different in the dial details when we're talking solid gold to solid gold. Again never seen these watches in person but from videos and pictures.
> 
> And I must said, PP is not some BMW. It's a Rolls Royce, a touch boring but known for their well "perfection". BMW is in the watch world more of a Tag to me.


Actually, a Rolls Royce is just some BMW... Although Patek does have some pretty conservative watches like in the Calatrava line like the 5127 the complications and grand complications lines have some pretty interesting dials.


----------



## Fi33pop (Aug 5, 2013)

They may well be really well made and finished, however, to me they look like, well, Seikos, kinda meh.


----------



## Jazzmaster (Apr 23, 2011)

To my mind, nothing captures the subtle beauty of the GS aesthetic more than the SBGA011 "Snowflake", which features a dial designed to capture the pattern carved in the snow by mountain winds...


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

ed21x said:


> I believe so, because he seikos are adjusted to six positions rather than five positions on the PP, as well as three temperature regimes instead of two on the PP.


Not sure about modern PP off the top of my head, but my vintage PP is indeed adjusted for temperature three times.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Flydive (Nov 18, 2013)

I picked up my SBGE011 last week. I absolutely love the finishing on it. It is at least as good, if not better, than my Rolex. I took a picture of the two together, but I'm not sure you can get all of the details unless you handle them both. I can't comment on the other brands though (PP, JLC etc&#8230

Just my two cents...


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Flydive said:


> I picked up my SBGE011 last week. I absolutely love the finishing on it. It is at least as good, if not better, than my Rolex. I took a picture of the two together, but I'm not sure you can get all of the details unless you handle them both. I can't comment on the other brands though (PP, JLC etc&#8230


The case finishing and details on a Patek Philippe Nautilus, Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, and Vacheron Constantin Overseas are at a much higher level of refinement and sophistication than on a Rolex, so unless your Grand Seiko is dramatically better than your Rolex in that regard, I can only conclude that the Grand Seiko cases are exceptionally well made, but not at the level of artistry of a Big Three sports watch.


----------



## little big feather (Mar 6, 2013)

I've been following this thread and I must admit that I have not looked at or held one(Seiko) since the early to mid 80's.
Next time I go to the Big City....I'm going to look at some.......See what I've been missing.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

The movements look very impressive but the designs live me a bit cold. A bit sterile for my taste.


----------



## Nikoloz (Sep 11, 2011)

i guess i don't have anything valuable to add to this thread other than my opinion.
i have handled a number of jlc watches, and had a MC for a short period of time and i simply refuse to accept GS "superiority" to the one of jlc.
not even on par...
jlc is beautifully decorated, completely in house, has a great history to it, (MC series has an extensive 1000 hour test period) and a lots of hand work has been put into each watch.
damn, it has not much to do with the watch as a product but JLC is not even a factory, it's a _manufacture._

maybe i'm missing something but looking at those pictures i can't see how GS is any better finished then comparable JLC watches.
Surely it's beautifully decorated, has a great dial with a lot of details, but same goes for new PO (8500), for me the JLC watches are in different league altogether..
no disrespect to GS or omega is intended of course (i even have speedy myself, which i love)


----------



## Takemusu (Feb 8, 2012)

TheWalrus said:


> To my mind, referencing high production tolerances and technology is no less marketing than referencing, passion, soul, history, or aesthetics - as the Swiss and Germans do (and I'm not sure one is superior to the other). It's all about what the consumer wants.


You hit the nail on the head. The design ethos and marketing position of Seiko (and the Swiss brands, incidentally) are culturally informed and directed, both as the maker and at the targeted demographic. If Seiko was really interested in a wider (European) appeal the focus in design, marketing, manufacture and distribution would all be markedly different.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

renovar said:


> Nothing against a Grand Seiko or an Ananta, I actually like those designs very much and have a lot of respect for those who made those choices who are obviously knows watches. But I think there is something romantic and charming about having a well-designed swiss watch. Not sure how to describe it.


Try "snobbery."


----------



## Greek Trojan (Sep 2, 2012)

Takemusu said:


> You hit the nail on the head. The design ethos and marketing position of Seiko (and the Swiss brands, incidentally) are culturally informed and directed, both as the maker and at the targeted demographic. If Seiko was really interested in a wider (European) appeal the focus in design, marketing, manufacture and distribution would all be markedly different.


Very interesting point that I had not thought of but completely agree with. The Japanese (gross generalization incoming) put a higher premium on craftsmanship, mastery of trade, and the beauty of simplicity. Europeans care a bit more about the history, prestige, and heritage of watches (a big part also coinciding with impeccable design/craftsmanship). I agree that the Snowflake mentioned is a great example of the merit of the GS line vis a vis the comparable Swiss competition.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> Try "snobbery."


That's not snobbery, in the slightest. It's an honest appraisal of his personal preferences. There's a lot about this hobby that evades easy categorization or description. If someone states a preference (even if they can't justify it), and simultaneously understands why others would choose a different path, that strikes me as the exact _opposite_ of snobbery. It seems, frankly, rather enlightened.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> That's not snobbery, in the slightest. It's an honest appraisal of his personal preferences. There's a lot about this hobby that evades easy categorization or description. If someone states a preference (even if they can't justify it), and simultaneously understands why others would choose a different path, that strikes me as the exact _opposite_ of snobbery. It seems, frankly, rather enlightened.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no other rational description of preferring a country of origin for your watch: That's what "snobbery" means. I understand that that is his "personal preference," but that doesn't hardly mean it's not snobbery.


----------



## zhan (Nov 21, 2009)

I think the best comparison for this might be the Top Gear comparison of the R8, MP412C and the Ferrari 458 Italia.
The R8 possessed the same performance and is valued at about half of the Ferrari, but no presenter would have the R8 in the conclusion of the test. 

When you make a luxury good/Veblen good purchase, its not really the price per performance ratio that wins out. The winner has to really provoke an emotional response, and the concept of "value" or "reliability" never really stirs any blood, does it.

The true Veblen good here is still the Rolex/name your Swiss watch brand, and the substitute will always be the Seiko.
You can talk all you want about "it is just as good as the Rolex, at a portion of the price", but it is not a Rolex.
The Audi R8 can be as good as the Ferrari , more durable, more reliable, have better value, but the punch line ends up really being it is not a Ferrari.

It is not snobbery, it is just how things are perceived IN THE REAL WORLD.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

zhan said:


> It is not snobbery, it is just how things are perceived IN THE REAL WORLD.


THE REAL WORLD is full of snobbery, isn't it? And the absurd preference for a watch merely because it's made in Switzerland is one excellent example. There's nothing wrong with a watch, merely because it's from Switzerland, of course. But there's also nothing special about a watch, merely because it's from Switzerland. The perception of "prestige" is what makes Swiss watches, just because of their country of origin, attractive to some. That's either snobbery or trying to impress folks with your ability to spend money on luxury goods. Take your pick as to which you want to call it.


----------



## zhan (Nov 21, 2009)

124Spider said:


> THE REAL WORLD is full of snobbery, isn't it? And the absurd preference for a watch merely because it's made in Switzerland is one excellent example. There's nothing wrong with a watch, merely because it's from Switzerland, of course. But there's also nothing special about a watch, merely because it's from Switzerland. The perception of "prestige" is what makes Swiss watches, just because of their country of origin, attractive to some. That's either snobbery or trying to impress folks with your ability to spend money on luxury goods. Take your pick as to which you want to call it.


Welcome to the real world. Or you can choose to continue to be delusional and live in your world.


----------



## KneeDragr (Aug 20, 2013)

Calling a preference for Swiss watches snobbery is akin to calling attractiveness to a particular race "racism".

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

zhan said:


> Welcome to the real world. Or you can choose to continue to be delusional and live in your world.


So, according to you, I'm somehow "delusional" when I assert that preferring a watch purely because it's from Switzerland is snobbery?

ROTFLMAO!!!


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

KneeDragr said:


> Calling a preference for Swiss watches snobbery is akin to calling attractiveness to a particular race "racism".
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


Denying that preferring a watch merely because it's from Switzerland is snobbery is like denying that racism exists.


----------



## Rounic (Sep 25, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Denying that preferring a watch merely because it's from Switzerland is snobbery is like denying that racism exists.


That's uncalled for. Preferring German cars has nothing to do with racism for example so why would picking Switzerland for watches?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Rounic said:


> That's uncalled for. Preferring German cars has nothing to do with racism for example so why would picking Switzerland for watches?


Perhaps you should read the exchange, and my posts, a bit more carefully. What you seem, oddly, to think I wrote is not even vaguely what I wrote.


----------



## Rounic (Sep 25, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Perhaps you should read the exchange, and my posts, a bit more carefully. What you seem, oddly, to think I wrote is not even vaguely what I wrote.


I do beg to differ, however I shall review your every post in this thread in hopes of correcting whichever rushed judgement may have occurred.


----------



## zhan (Nov 21, 2009)

You do know you are the only one defending the point you are so desperately trying to make.
I think that shows it pretty clear who is delusional.


----------



## zhan (Nov 21, 2009)

Rounic said:


> I do beg to differ, however I shall review your every post in this thread in hopes of correcting whichever rushed judgement may have occurred.


----------



## Rounic (Sep 25, 2013)

zhan said:


> I think the best comparison for this might be the Top Gear comparison of the R8, MP412C and the Ferrari 458 Italia.
> The R8 possessed the same performance and is valued at about half of the Ferrari, but no presenter would have the R8 in the conclusion of the test.
> 
> When you make a luxury good/Veblen good purchase, its not really the price per performance ratio that wins out. The winner has to really provoke an emotional response, and the concept of "value" or "reliability" never really stirs any blood, does it.
> ...


Ahem, regarding the R8... The particular comparison in question went a bit over your head  and I don't mean that in a negative way. The folks at TG do tend to wander off


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

Great duo.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

zhan said:


> You do know you are the only one defending the point you are so desperately trying to make.
> I think that shows it pretty clear who is delusional.


"Delusional" is a funny, odd pejorative to use, and you've now used it repeatedly.

But as long as you want to insist on the use of the word, you might want to look in the mirror as you utter it. Denying that a preference for Swiss watches, without regard to objectively more important attributes like quality and appearance, is likely to be snobbery is, well, delusional.

Now, I'll let you folks continue your delusion, without further participation.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

No use rationalizing. I think it went something like this


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Snobbery/elitism is an integral part of horology. It shouldn't be, but it is. 

Even among Swiss brands there's elitism. Why else would brands be categorized starting with "the big 3," high end, midrange and low end? 

Does being in the low end category mean those brands don't make good or great watches? No. Does it mean the big 3 make better watches than the rest? Again no. It's all about lineage or lack thereof. 

This has been the way since the 1800's. Tough mentality to break.

Of course, this can change. The game now is marketing. IF Seiko wanted to, they could play along but it seems they're content keeping the Grand Seiko as a bit of a cultural secret.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Oh god. I woke up this morning, and look what's happened to this thread!? What is racism doing being discussed on a watch forum? Save this thread please guys, otherwise the Mods will close it. Sadly, it's one of the better 'GS vs Swiss' threads. If you've never even HANDLED a GS, I don't think this thread is for you.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Domo said:


> If you've never even HANDLED a GS, I don't think this thread is for you.


why?
I'm willing to be a great many people on WUS talk about watches they've never seen or had in their hands and it isn't limited to GS.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> why?
> I'm willing to be a great many people on WUS talk about watches they've never seen or had in their hands and it isn't limited to GS.


You're right, I should have been more specific. If you're going to compare the finishing and quality of a GS, you need to have at least handled one. Otherwise you're just talking out of your arse.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Domo said:


> You're right, I should have been more specific. If you're going to compare the finishing and quality of a GS, you need to have at least handled one. Otherwise you're just talking out of your arse.


and to paraphrase my previous post:

I'm willing to bet (typo in my original - it's amazing how having a mug in front of the keyboard screws up typing ability) that a great many people on WUS talk out of their a*** about watches they've never seen or had in their hands.


----------



## renovar (Oct 7, 2013)

Yea guys relax man... There is nothing personal here and everything I post just reflect my opinion. If one thinks I am a snob I take it as a compliment...  A snob in my mind means I am a man of discerning taste, a man who calls (what I think) a spade a spade. And I do think a GS as a brand is a very good line of watches that's better than probably 99% of all watches being worn in this world right now. Lets not lose sight of that. If I am calling the 99.9 is better decorated is better decorated than the mere 99, is that elitist? Maybe one can perceive that's elitist (note the difference between elitist and snobbish), but the OP's thread clearly calls for opinions solicitation of opinions.

I want to point out a couple things of actually owning these "elitist" pieces (I have a Breguet Marine and a Lange Saxonia). Wearing these pieces actually people dont notice these NEARLY as much (let alone even able to identify these watches) than my Rolex, not even close actually... It's actually quite "anti-showoff" if you will. If someone says "oh I want a PP Calatrava so I can show off" they clearly dont know what they are talking about.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> and to paraphrase my previous post:
> 
> I'm willing to bet (typo in my original - it's amazing how having a mug in front of the keyboard screws up typing ability) that a great many people on WUS talk out of their a*** about watches they've never seen or had in their hands.


I'm sure you're absolutely right. And people IMO shouldn't do that. There's nothing wrong with giving ANY _opinion_ on a watch even if you've never even SEEN it, but to specifically compare the finishing to say, an omega Planet Ocean if you've never seen one like someone did before, is just misleading and nonsense. And I'm sure a lot of this goes on too, because GS aren't available in most watch stores. In my country, there is only ONE store to see them. I have to make an effort to oggle them.
There's a big difference between talking about a watch, and criticizing it as if you know better. Just my view.


----------



## Rounic (Sep 25, 2013)

No such thing as being content in business. Prove me wrong.


----------



## GlennO (Jan 3, 2010)

Just to remind us all, the OP's query was the result of an inability to inspect a GS in person. He asked "in the steel, how does Grand Seiko compare to top tier brands mentioned in the topic title". I do feel that only those who have owned or handled the watches in question are able to contribute relevant advice to the thread. I think that is borne out by the few responses that have been relevant and informative. The rest, based on brand perception and preferences etc etc only serves to muddy the waters and drag us back into the same old arguments.


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

zhan said:


> [cut]The Audi R8 can be as good as the Ferrari , more durable, more reliable, have better value, but the punch line ends up really being it is not a Ferrari.
> 
> It is not snobbery, it is just how things are perceived IN THE REAL WORLD.


And a Ferrari isn't an Audi.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

From a fit/finish and quality standpoint, my GS's have matched my AP's, Lange's, Breguet and JLC's equally if not better. A lot cheaper, too . . . .


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

In general the Swiss have a different ethos regarding watches as do the Japanese, just the same as the German car ethos is different from the Italians, the Americans, The Japanese and the British. Saying you prefer Japanese cars or Swiss watches COULD be based on racism, but I would bet the VAST majority of the preference for one or the other is based on the fact the persons ethos regarding the particular product lines up much better with one countries goods. One may appreciate the reliability and durability of a Japanese car but prefer the beauty of a Aston Martin or Jaguar to the near perfection in build quality of a Lexus. To insinuate that this is based somehow on race is LUDICROUS unless there is some other information involved. There are plenty of racists in this world and throwing around the label racists just to try to make a point on the internet when actually intelligent debate fails a person dilutes the actual import of the word. I prefer German cars to American cars, I guess I am racists toward myself.


----------



## The Naf (Mar 31, 2012)

GlennO said:


> Just to remind us all, the OP's query was the result of an inability to inspect a GS in person. He asked "in the steel, how does Grand Seiko compare to top tier brands mentioned in the topic title". I do feel that only those who have owned or handled the watches in question are able to contribute relevant advice to the thread. I think that is borne out by the few responses that have been relevant and informative. The rest, based on brand perception and preferences etc etc only serves to muddy the waters and drag us back into the same old arguments.


This comment deserves more likes...


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

It is simply not possible to come to conclusive production traits based on nationality alone. Each brand must be taken on its own terms, and even that is problematic. You really ought to be comparing one individual model against another individual model. And even THAT is not truly effective in the world of mechanical watches because things like accuracy are so variable, but in practical terms, we can't really deal with that. Which is an Italian car, a Fiat or a Ferrari? Which is a Japanese car, a Lexus or a Daihatsu? Which is a German car, a contemporary Mini or an S-Class? 

Which is a Swiss watch, a Swatch quartz or a Jaeger Reverso? Which is a Japanese watch, a Seiko 5 or a Grand Seiko Hi-Beat? 

The project is simply untenable, for many of the same reason "tiers" are practical impossibilities, at least in terms of yielding useful information. 

A much more narrow focus on a brand, and again, particular models, is needed. Grand Seiko, taken as a fairly narrow subset of models, is quite excellent. I haven't handled much that I felt matched it. It's not for everyone of course. If you're concerned about the quality, and that keeps you at bay, then you can safely go ahead and get it. Like any manufacture, it's not universally flawless, but the vast majority of owners find that the quality is world class.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> In general the Swiss have a different ethos regarding watches as do the Japanese, just the same as the German car ethos is different from the Italians, the Americans, The Japanese and the British. Saying you prefer Japanese cars or Swiss watches COULD be based on racism, but I would bet the VAST majority of the preference for one or the other is based on the fact the persons ethos regarding the particular product lines up much better with one countries goods. One may appreciate the reliability and durability of a Japanese car but prefer the beauty of a Aston Martin or Jaguar to the near perfection in build quality of a Lexus. To insinuate that this is based somehow on race is LUDICROUS unless there is some other information involved. There are plenty of racists in this world and throwing around the label racists just to try to make a point on the internet when actually intelligent debate fails a person dilutes the actual import of the word. I prefer German cars to American cars, I guess I am racists toward myself.


Just out of curiosity, could you point to where anyone said one's preference for country of origin of watch is based on race or racism? And be careful in that pointing, please.

You see, nobody did.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

For sure, and no one could have predicted this thread would turn out like this right? Uhh....


The Naf said:


> This comment deserves more likes...


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

cabfrank said:


> For sure, and no one could have predicted this thread would turn out like this right? Uhh....


They ALL turn out like this LOL. It's not surprising. GS is an exception to many of the preconceptions of nice watches. It naturally ruffles a few feathers.
Your post made me think back to the OP's question though. I don't think buying a GS sight unseen is wise. You may have to buy the exact model you want without seeing it, because usually the range that AD's stock is quite small, but you should at least see what a GS in the flesh is all about. Otherwise if you hype it up thinking it's gonna be some ornate Swiss masterpiece, you may be disappointed.


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

Nothing derails a thread like Grand Seiko and Rolex. o|


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mew88 said:


> Nothing derails a thread like Grand Seiko and Rolex. o|


nope. 
they're just watches; it's the people that do it.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

I know, I was attempting sarcasm, or humor. Fail.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

GlennO said:


> Just to remind us all, the OP's query was the result of an inability to inspect a GS in person. He asked "in the steel, how does Grand Seiko compare to top tier brands mentioned in the topic title". I do feel that only those who have owned or handled the watches in question are able to contribute relevant advice to the thread. I think that is borne out by the few responses that have been relevant and informative. The rest, based on brand perception and preferences etc etc only serves to muddy the waters and drag us back into the same old arguments.


Correctamundo.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

As an aside, for all the posters who crave more blued screws and movement decoration as well as a minimal amount of wordings on the dial, here's the Seiko for you (lifted off the web and not mine obviously).









This is obviously what Seiko decides Grand Seiko is not about (yet) but you'll never know when the big guy changes his mind. The truth of the matter is that GS is currently not about heavily decorated movements nor fancy dials (I have yet to see a proper guilloche or 2 tone dial on one, unless you count an ugly pink swirl dial for one of the limited edition spring drive). You can't get anything beyond a simple date, gmt and power reserve function either. Even if I wanted to compare the quality of the PP 5205g with a GS, I can't because GS will not make one. But for what they do make, and the intent is for a quality timepiece, the end product is phenomenal. Whether it's a Grand Seiko or just a Seiko, as above, the depth of skills to produce a quality time piece is simply not lacking and will compare favourably to anything swiss or german imho. And if they feel they lack the necessary expertise (see finishing on movement for the credor eichi) they ask and learn from the best. That earns them my respect honestly. Cheers!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## renovar (Oct 7, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> As an aside, for all the posters who crave more blued screws and movement decoration as well as a minimal amount of wordings on the dial, here's the Seiko for you (lifted off the web and not mine obviously).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is one COOL watch. I'd buy that on the spot if I see it...


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

I think it's fair to say that Rolex and Grand Seiko are very similar companies and probably the two most comparable brands.
They both produce simple timeless pieces that will last for decades and still be in fashion.
They're both very hardy reliable pieces, if Rolex is the knight then Seiko is the samurai.
Very disciplined and rigid companies, when they release something new it's a big deal and generally they both get the respect they deserve.
Unfortunately however, I do feel that Rolex's prices have crept up a lot recently which has tarred their rep a little for me.
GS does tend to make Rolex look like a company with a lot of flair sometimes which is saying something.

I think every brand is comparable to some degree but I think JLC and GO are a step up from the Rolex/GS level.
When handling one of these, it's quite special and they tend to dazzle you in so many ways.

I can't really comment on the others as I've only handled some Langes but not the others.
The Langes were extraordinary, just incredible and I really cannot see any comparison being made to that particular brand.

That being said, I feel that GS tends to bring out some fans who for whatever reason feel some sort of superiority to fans of other brands.
They defend GS and take any sort of criticism to heart and then bully their point home. There's always a certain smugness there.
You see it in every what should I buy post; Save your money and buy a GS, spend a bit more and buy a GS, since I bought my GS my life has improved, GS is basically PP without the logo so nobody except you will know what it is, etc.

GS is a great brand but it deservedly belongs in it's tier, the same with any watch in that tier it has it's moments when it looks able to elevate itself out but you buy what you pay for at the end of the day.


----------



## R3XXY (Oct 31, 2013)

I have owned 7 Rolexs, including two Comexs, I recently bought a GS Diver and would take a GS over a Rolex any day. The finish is stunning, but the main thing for me is that it actually does what it is supposed to do, tell the time.

Rolexs are woefully inaccurate for the price you have to pay for them.

depends what you're after I suppose, I used to be a brand whore and like the prestige of a Rolex, now I'm more into sick engineering innovation and flawless build quality.


----------



## at2011 (Jan 23, 2011)

Always thought Seiko is one of the "Big Three" having been making watches since the late 1800s and almost obliterating the Swiss matchmaking industry in the early 80s.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

at2011 said:


> Always thought Seiko is one of the "Big Three"


It is - the other two being Citizen and Casio


----------



## at2011 (Jan 23, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> It is - the other two being Citizen and Casio


Very funny! Can you tell me how to turn-off the Swiss Fanboy Hurt Feelings alarm on my Tapatalk app, lol?


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> It is - the other two being Citizen and Casio


Seiko, Citizen, Casio > Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Audemars Piguet. This is an easy comparison. PP, VC and AP sell too little watches. The Japanese trio is clearly superior.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

faiz said:


> I think it's fair to say that Rolex and Grand Seiko are very similar companies and probably the two most comparable brands.
> They both produce simple timeless pieces that will last for decades and still be in fashion.
> They're both very hardy reliable pieces, if Rolex is the knight then Seiko is the samurai.
> Very disciplined and rigid companies, when they release something new it's a big deal and generally they both get the respect they deserve.
> ...


I can't decide what I dislike more. Faint praise or disdain? Hmmm....


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

faiz said:


> I think it's fair to say that Rolex and Grand Seiko are very similar companies and probably the two most comparable brands.
> They both produce simple timeless pieces that will last for decades and still be in fashion.
> They're both very hardy reliable pieces, if Rolex is the knight then Seiko is the samurai.
> Very disciplined and rigid companies, when they release something new it's a big deal and generally they both get the respect they deserve.
> ...


I actually agree with that. No so different after all. The only thing I disagree with is your view on JLC and GO being a step up. It's easy to think that, because they both make some dazzling nice watches, but if you compare ONLY the models that can compete with a GS (namely, the plain, cheapest 3 handers) they're within the same league. The finishing on a GS is equal to what's on a Master for example. Different execution of course, but I'd say the sharp lines, polishing and dial indices on a GS are actually nicer. But you can only compare similarly priced watches. How many people actually buy a JLC master tourbilon or a Glashutte perpetual calendar anyway?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

lethaltoes said:


> I can't decide what I dislike more. Faint praise or disdain? Hmmm....


I was about to "like" your post, but then I re-read the post you quoted. While I agree that there does appear to be a bit of, well, disdain implicit in the post (causing it to look like the proverbial "faint praise), it is (IMO) essentially correct.

The only substantive nit I have to pick is that one really cannot pigeon-hole companies like JLC into a "tier" any more than one can put all of Seiko into a single tier. JLC happens to be my favorite watch company; their higher-end pieces are utterly exquisite to my eye (with a price tag that guarantees that I'll never own one). But their lower-end pieces are not any better than Grand Seiko, IMO, either in movement, finish or appearance.

Mark


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

124Spider said:


> I was about to "like" your post, but then I re-read the post you quoted. While I agree that there does appear to be a bit of, well, disdain implicit in the post (causing it to look like the proverbial "faint praise), it is (IMO) essentially correct.
> 
> The only substantive nit I have to pick is that one really cannot pigeon-hole companies like JLC into a "tier" any more than one can put all of Seiko into a single tier. JLC happens to be my favorite watch company; their higher-end pieces are utterly exquisite to my eye (with a price tag that guarantees that I'll never own one). But their lower-end pieces are not any better than Grand Seiko, IMO, either in movement, finish or appearance.
> 
> Mark


Now THAT is a post I can like without condition or reservation ;-) Well said.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

124Spider said:


> I was about to "like" your post, but then I re-read the post you quoted. While I agree that there does appear to be a bit of, well, disdain implicit in the post (causing it to look like the proverbial "faint praise), it is (IMO) essentially correct.
> 
> The only substantive nit I have to pick is that one really cannot pigeon-hole companies like JLC into a "tier" any more than one can put all of Seiko into a single tier. JLC happens to be my favorite watch company; their higher-end pieces are utterly exquisite to my eye (with a price tag that guarantees that I'll never own one). But their lower-end pieces are not any better than Grand Seiko, IMO, either in movement, finish or appearance.
> 
> Mark


+1


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

little big feather said:


> I've been following this thread and I must admit that I have not looked at or held one(Seiko) since the early to mid 80's.
> Next time I go to the Big City....I'm going to look at some.......See what I've been missing.


They're darn nice watches. IMHO they're on par with Rolex for case finishing though the GS case curves are more complicated. The bracelets aren't as nice. Where they really shine is in the movements- probably not as tough as Rolex but better finished. I own one and am thinking a snowflake will eventually make its way into my collection.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Will_f said:


> They're darn nice watches. IMHO they're on par with Rolex for case finishing though the GS case curves are more complicated. The bracelets aren't as nice. Where they really shine is in the movements- probably not as tough as Rolex but better finished. I own one and am thinking a snowflake will eventually make its way into my collection.


The snowflake is a wonderful creation (and much better in the metal than in any photo)! And the Spring Drive movement likely is far tougher than any Rolex, simply because they've replaced the traditional escapement (the weakest part of any "normal" mechanical watch) with one that isn't nearly as fragile.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

124Spider said:


> The snowflake is a wonderful creation (and much better in the metal than in any photo)! And the Spring Drive movement likely is far tougher than any Rolex, simply because they've replaced the traditional escapement (the weakest part of any "normal" mechanical watch) with one that isn't nearly as fragile.


I don't know if an SD movement is tougher or not, but I'm going to try and avoid finding out.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Will_f said:


> I don't know if an SD movement is tougher or not, but I'm going to try and avoid finding out.


Excellent plan!


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

drhr said:


> From a fit/finish and quality standpoint, my GS's have matched my AP's, Lange's, Breguet and JLC's equally if not better. A lot cheaper, too . . . .


This is probably the most informative post in this thread, as very few people have really felt a GS in hand. Thanks for posting those awesome pictures of your GS's (post#90 in this thread). Definitely puts the discussion back on track.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

faiz said:


> I think every brand is comparable to some degree but I think JLC and GO are a step up from the Rolex/GS level.
> When handling one of these, it's quite special and they tend to dazzle you in so many ways.
> 
> ...
> GS is a great brand but it deservedly belongs in it's tier, the same with any watch in that tier it has it's moments when it looks able to elevate itself out but you buy what you pay for at the end of the day.


I personally felt like the difference was fairly obvious when I had both in hand, and this is coming from a Rolex fan who saved up quite a bit in order to have a sub be his first ever 'grail' and 'expensive watch.' To boldly make an assumption otherwise without handling a GS really does highlight an intentional bias.

I mean, if this were a tissot vs hamilton comparison, I can see how it can go either way, but for GS vs Rolex, you need to really stretch to justify such an assumption.


----------



## berni29 (Sep 8, 2007)

Hi

I went from Rolex GMTII to a GS Sbge001 and for me the GS is the nicer watch. I recently bought a Pelagos so I have nothing against Swiss watches. I do have a soft spot for Seiko though.

Berni

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

ed21x said:


> I personally felt like the difference was fairly obvious when I had both in hand, and this is coming from a Rolex fan who saved up quite a bit in order to have a sub be his first ever 'grail' and 'expensive watch.' To boldly make an assumption otherwise without handling a GS really does highlight an intentional bias.
> 
> I mean, if this were a tissot vs hamilton comparison, I can see how it can go either way, but for GS vs Rolex, you need to really stretch to justify such an assumption.


This justifies my point exactly.
Because I have made a comparison you immediately come down on me saying assumption this and that.
Yet you have made an assumption that I have assumed without seeing, touching, wearing and laying them side by side.
Obviously it would be crazy for me to see one and not think it to be the best watch in the world right?
Other than the obvious trying on and looking in store, my best friend was gifted a Seiko by one of his suppliers, I have a Rolex and whenever he's wearing it I always like to have a look at his.
Who on this forum wouldn't? We all love watches.
It's a fantastic watch, it's a Japan only Seiko Galante Spring Drive;










It retails for about $6-7000.
It is mesmerising to watch the second hand move flawlessly around the dial.
It is a funky and beautiful design and I always tell him how much I like it.
But I still feel that fit and finish is more or less the same as my GMT Master 2, why is that so hard to accept?
The Spring Drive is certainly an aspect that is awesome but fit and finish? They're the same.
Funnily enough, he bought a Datejust 2 this year and loves it.
GS make great watches and they are priced well for what they are.
But I wouldn't exchange my Rolex for one.
Luckily my Rolex was bought at a time when they weren't priced as they are now.
I was quite shocked to see the price being asked nowadays.
My Rolex is 10 years old and has been through a pretty rough life here in Africa.
It's been up mountains, in the Nile, various lakes, the Indian ocean, dinged and bashed all over the place and it's still a perfect timekeeper.
Cosiderably better than my Breitling.










The GMT Master is THE GMT watch.
It's an icon and it didn't get its reputation for nothing.
Nobody can market something that's no good and make it sell as much as Rolex has.

GS is a great brand, so is Rolex.
For me they are the two most comparable brands.
Maybe one day I might buy a GS.
One of my favourite watches is a Seiko;










And I wish GS made this watch with a Spring Drive mechanism and no date.
It would be close to perfection and finish my perfect 3 piece collection.


----------



## OrangeSport (Jan 2, 2012)

Greek Trojan said:


> Very interesting point that I had not thought of but completely agree with. The Japanese (gross generalization incoming) put a higher premium on craftsmanship, mastery of trade, and the beauty of simplicity. Europeans care a bit more about the history, prestige, and heritage of watches (a big part also coinciding with impeccable design/craftsmanship). I agree that the Snowflake mentioned is a great example of the merit of the GS line vis a vis the comparable Swiss competition.


I think this is pretty close to the whole point. GS has a long history, but until recently it was aimed for the domestic market. That market, in general, does favour form driven by function and the beauty of designs that leads too. It is slightly different to European design concepts.

From my point of view, the GS watches I have seen in the flesh have blown me away. The fact that they are even being compared to top end brands so quickly after their push into new markets just shows that the design philosophy does work. I think they should stick to their principals. There s room for different approaches to watch designs in my opinion.


----------



## enkidu (Mar 26, 2010)

Nice post, except for one thing: Galante != Grand Seiko. Same parent, different line. Do you think the Spring Drive Ananta's have the same level of finish that the Grand Seiko's have? That's like looking at an IWC with a JLC movement and making assumptions about JLC's fit and finish. Some IWC's cost as much as a JLC, doesn't mean they are in the same class of finishing detail. Just because your Galante cost the same as a Grand Seiko doesn't imply it either.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

I have 2 problems with GS-Ananta

1. Service: no local service centers, once in 5 years you must send your watch to Japan =big $$$
2. Resale value. Sorry, but it's not even close to swiss made everywhere except Japan.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Alex_TA said:


> I have 2 problems with GS-Ananta
> 
> 1. Service: no local service centers, once in 5 years you must send your watch to Japan =big $$$
> 2. Resale value. Sorry, but it's not even close to swiss made everywhere except Japan.


I have the exact same issues haha!

That's also why GS is primarily for Japan.

No matter how good the watch is you just have to be practical.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

enkidu said:


> Nice post, except for one thing: Galante != Grand Seiko. Same parent, different line. Do you think the Spring Drive Ananta's have the same level of finish that the Grand Seiko's have? That's like looking at an IWC with a JLC movement and making assumptions about JLC's fit and finish. Some IWC's cost as much as a JLC, doesn't mean they are in the same class of finishing detail. Just because your Galante cost the same as a Grand Seiko doesn't imply it either.


These are extremely well constructed and designed, hand assembled watches that include the very impressive (and accurate) Seiko Spring Drive mechanical hybrid movements. They are the best of what Seiko offers and are considered by many to be a modern pinnacle of mechanical watch making.

Ariel Adams

I didn't say Ananta, it's a Galante.
It's not mine, you need to read the post.
These are very exclusive high end watches, read up about it.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

faiz said:


> This justifies my point exactly.
> Because I have made a comparison you immediately come down on me saying assumption this and that.
> Yet you have made an assumption that I have assumed without seeing, touching, wearingand laying them side by side.
> Obviously it would be crazy for me to see one and not think it to be the best watch in the world right?
> ...


I don't know if your friend has the same watch as the image you provided since I'm assuming that's an image you lifted off the web but I'm going to assume it is. I'm also assuming that what you have been truthful about comparing the 10 year old Rolex to the galante in the flesh. I have only these words of advice for you. You really need to educate yourself a little more in the appreciation of fine details and construction of watches. I mean that in a good way. Honestly, you don't have to like GS or anything else Seiko but at least be able to objectively assess the work presented at hand. Otherwise, how are you able to add anything meaningful to a thread about quality? Instead of ranting about GS owners being sensitive and petty, just grab a loupe and look at the dial, hands and print next time you have a chance. Cheers!


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

faiz said:


> *It's a fantastic watch,* it's a Japan only Seiko Galante Spring Drive;
> 
> 
> 
> ...





lethaltoes said:


> I don't know if your friend has the same watch as the image you provided since I'm assuming that's an image you lifted off the web but I'm going to assume it is. I'm also assuming that what you have been truthful about comparing the 10 year old Rolex to the galante in the flesh. I have only these words of advice for you. You really need to educate yourself a little more in the appreciation of fine details and construction of watches. I mean that in a good way. Honestly, you don't have to like GS or anything else Seiko but at least be able to objectively assess the work presented at hand. Otherwise, how are you able to add anything meaningful to a thread about quality? Instead of ranting about GS owners being sensitive and petty, just grab a loupe and look at the dial, hands and print next time you have a chance. Cheers!


I highlighted the points I made where I specified that I liked the watch and quality.
Makes it easier to read this time.
But thanks for proving my point.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

faiz said:


> These are extremely well constructed and designed, hand assembled watches that include the very impressive (and accurate) Seiko Spring Drive mechanical hybrid movements. They are the best of what Seiko offers and are considered by many to be a modern pinnacle of mechanical watch making.
> 
> Ariel Adams
> 
> ...


They are indeed. The aesthetics are unusual to say the least but many of them have a level of construction and craftsmanship that the swiss will struggle to match. I honestly can't believe how you could have missed it. Just saying.


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

Lol. 
Ok Lethaltoes it's just my opinion, as I said it's a fantastic watch.
I don't want to degrade this thread, everyone is entitled to an opinion, even me.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Alex_TA said:


> I have 2 problems with GS-Ananta
> 
> 1. Service: no local service centers, once in 5 years you must send your watch to Japan =big $$$
> 2. Resale value. Sorry, but it's not even close to swiss made everywhere except Japan.


Sorry. Last post before I call it a day on this thread. Resale value - most GS owners I reckon stumble upon the brand after an extended meandering in the Swiss and German watch wilderness. My experience is that this statement is way too generic to warrant a comment. Suffice to say, good luck if you feel all swiss brands are minted safe bets. Service - I have no issues sending my GS back to the factory for a bit of tlc. Especially the spring drives. The watches will be looked after in what must be one of the largest clean room operated in the industry and by the experienced watchmakers who assembled them. A little expense for a whole lot of assurance. But that's my preference honestly and if convenience is paramount, look elsewhere by all means. Cheers!


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

faiz said:


> Lol.
> Ok Lethaltoes it's just my opinion, as I said it's a fantastic watch.
> I don't want to degrade this thread, everyone is entitled to an opinion, even me.


You most certainly are. I'm just a little bewildered at your assessment. That's all. I do apologise if I have been too harsh. I do hope to have more discussions with you in the future. Cheers!


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

Alex_TA said:


> I have 2 problems with GS-Ananta
> 
> 1. Service: no local service centers, once in 5 years you must send your watch to Japan =big $$$
> 2. Resale value. Sorry, but it's not even close to swiss made everywhere except Japan.


1. Last time I needed my GS serviced, it was sent to NJ Seiko service center - who then forwarded it to Japan. That said, that is what MANY of the service centers do as well, my JLC was sent to Switzerland by my AD service center. I did not raise hell or had any issues because they did it. The full service on my top of the line GS with MSRP over $10K cost me $1280 all together including shipping and full polish. I did hear that watches with similar MSRP AND complications (chrono AND gmt) goes for approximately $1K to service as well.

2. There are VERY VERY few watches which fetches high resale value period. No matter WHERE they are made. Some popular models from GS line indeed retains value (ie. Snowflake). How much is that Zenith fetch? I had a Zenith Multicity Traveller with MSRP of over $14K, Grey pricing of just over $10K, resale pricing of barely over $5k. Which is actually WORSE than my GS Spring Drive Chrono. JLC isn't THAT much better either, JLC Master Compressor Diving Chrono has MSRP of over $14K, Typical Grey pricing of $11K and typical resale pricing of around $7500 which is just about half the price of MSRP. You are thinking of VERY VERY SELECT few companies/models when talking about good resale value (Rolex sub/some Panerai/or PP/AP - VC seems to lag when it comes to resale. Now Lange seem even BETTER than PP recently)


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

I like Grand Seiko because it's definitely a stealth watch, your co-workers will believe it's a nice watch but just a Seiko. Really only you and a select few will realize what it actually is.

I stated in the past that I wouldn't pay 5K+ for a Seiko, but I backtrack on that statement, everything I've bought from Seiko recently has really surprised me. If a $400 SARB and $500 SUMO are indicative of the quality I can only imagine what a 5K Seiko looks and feels like.


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

I wish GS was more accessible in the US. I still haven't seen one in person, and threads like this one make me want to even more.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> If a $400 SARB and $500 SUMO are indicative of the quality I can only imagine what a 5K Seiko looks and feels like.


My sentiment exactly. I have a vintage Seiko that was on my wrist virtually 24/7 for just over 20 years (and is now retired), green Alpinist and Sportura Perpetual Kinetic, and somewhere along the line I hope I will have one with Spring Drive.


----------



## Au Hasard Balthazar (Feb 18, 2013)

hpark21 said:


> 1. Last time I needed my GS serviced, it was sent to NJ Seiko service center - who then forwarded it to Japan. That said, that is what MANY of the service centers do as well, my JLC was sent to Switzerland by my AD service center. I did not raise hell or had any issues because they did it. The full service on my top of the line GS with MSRP over $10K cost me $1280 all together including shipping and full polish. I did hear that watches with similar MSRP AND complications (chrono AND gmt) goes for approximately $1K to service as well.
> 
> 2. There are VERY VERY few watches which fetches high resale value period. No matter WHERE they are made. Some popular models from GS line indeed retains value (ie. Snowflake). How much is that Zenith fetch? I had a Zenith Multicity Traveller with MSRP of over $14K, Grey pricing of just over $10K, resale pricing of barely over $5k. Which is actually WORSE than my GS Spring Drive Chrono. JLC isn't THAT much better either, JLC Master Compressor Diving Chrono has MSRP of over $14K, Typical Grey pricing of $11K and typical resale pricing of around $7500 which is just about half the price of MSRP. You are thinking of VERY VERY SELECT few companies/models when talking about good resale value (Rolex sub/some Panerai/or PP/AP - VC seems to lag when it comes to resale. Now Lange seem even BETTER than PP recently)


I completely agree with this sentiment. The argument GS is a bad buy because of resale value is bunk and ignores the fact that the vast majority of watches lose value as soon as they are purchased. Zenith, GP, VC, JLC, Parmigiani, Breguet, Blancpain, UN, GO, ALS, and plenty of other Swiss and German luxury brands have resale values well below their MSRP and purchase prices.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

ed21x said:


> This is probably the most informative post in this thread, as very few people have really felt a GS in hand. Thanks for posting those awesome pictures of your GS's (post#90 in this thread). Definitely puts the discussion back on track.


I don't agree with the informative part, I'm afraid. I have the highest respect for GS, but they really aren't in the same league as Lange, Breuget, or AP when it comes to movement finishing.

Seiko makes watches that are competitive with Lange et.al. They don't call them Grand Seikos though.


----------



## plainsimple (Feb 21, 2012)

According to the Grand Seiko website, there is a store in Amsterdam!

_Seiko Center_
Heiligeweg 14, 1012 XR

They sure do look amazing in the flesh. If you get the chance, have a look at the Snowflake!

Sorry if this has been told before, but I didn't feel like going through 14 pages just for that.


----------



## Bidle (Aug 5, 2006)

plainsimple said:


> According to the Grand Seiko website, there is a store in Amsterdam!
> 
> _Seiko Center_
> Heiligeweg 14, 1012 XR
> ...


Yep there is, worth going to, but best to forget your wallet. ;-)


----------



## Techniec (Dec 9, 2007)

Thanks guys, this is great news ! Will go over there next week to check them out (my account manager probably won't be too happy with the (likely) outcome )

BR,

Pieter



Bidle said:


> Yep there is, worth going to, but best to forget your wallet. ;-)


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

I don't 'get' this whole 'GS-Poor resale' argument. I troll through the internets looking for a second hand one often (I have no problem buying used in good nick) and I wouldn't say the prices are low. They're generally very high. AND they sell fast, too. I'd say that's based partly on the merits of the watch, but also because they're something of a rarity and not sold in many jewellers. (Even harder/more expensive to find a JDM) IMO, that goes for ALL high end Seikos. Even Anantas, Tunas, LE's, Landmasters, etc.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

Longjean said:


> Not the only grand things that they make, don't forget about their superb pianos.


Don't forget about their knives that are the best and have been for centuries.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Domo said:


> I don't 'get' this whole 'GS-Poor resale' argument. I troll through the internets looking for a second hand one often (I have no problem buying used in good nick) and I wouldn't say the prices are low. They're generally very high. AND they sell fast, too. I'd say that's based partly on the merits of the watch, but also because they're something of a rarity and not sold in many jewellers. (Even harder/more expensive to find a JDM) IMO, that goes for ALL high end Seikos. Even Anantas, Tunas, LE's, Landmasters, etc.


The resale value of virtually all JMD models is generaly great, provided you bought the watch (personaly) in Japan. I bought Seiko Alpinist for $380 and Casio Oceanus for $515. A quick check on ebay shows you cannot get Alpinist for less than $400 and Oceanus for less than $600.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Domo said:


> I don't 'get' this whole 'GS-Poor resale' argument. I troll through the internets looking for a second hand one often (I have no problem buying used in good nick) and I wouldn't say the prices are low. They're generally very high. AND they sell fast, too. I'd say that's based partly on the merits of the watch, but also because they're something of a rarity and not sold in many jewellers. (Even harder/more expensive to find a JDM) IMO, that goes for ALL high end Seikos. Even Anantas, Tunas, LE's, Landmasters, etc.


Well, that's actually true these days. Especially if you stick to popular Seiko models, really not that big a drop in price. I suppose it depends on the market.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## Greek Trojan (Sep 2, 2012)

I actually think that the resale value complaint is valid for the GS watches, which is rare because I think resale value concerns are generally absurd and delusional (used solely to promote a facade of fiscal legitimacy to an emotional and unlogical purchase of a luxury watch). Since most people outside of Japan can't try them out on wrist, you assume a pretty large cost to try one without knowing how it works for you in real life. Now this argument only works for people in metropolitan areas who have access to all the WUS favorites as many people here probably "blind buy" luxury watches from time to time here.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm going to make a bold predicition, although I am certainly not qualified to do so, but I believe this thread is near its end, as in, soon to be closed.


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

cabfrank said:


> I'm going to make a bold predicition, although I am certainly not qualified to do so, but I believe this thread is near its end, as in, soon to be closed.


I dunno....usually the 'GS vs Swiss luxury' threads reach about 20 pages. If this thread is allowed to just die a peaceful death due to natural causes, it may just be the first of it's kind


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

Might be a random question, but do Spring Drive movements make any sort of noise like a regular mechanical watch? I'm left to wonder since I haven't seen a SD GS in person.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ImitationOfLife said:


> Might be a random question, but do Spring Drive movements make any sort of noise like a regular mechanical watch? I'm left to wonder since I haven't seen a SD GS in person.


This was a video someone took of his Spring Drive winding.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Telling people here they can't really judge a watch without having seen or held one.

That's 80% of the posts here.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Wow....Amsterdam's a mighty cosmopolitan place. I'm surprised to see that no Seiko dealer offers a Grand Seiko. How hard have you looked? Seiko's website indicates there's a Grand Seiko store just off Singel at:
_Seiko Center_
Heiligeweg 14, 1012 XR

I'm sure if you are in Amsterdam you could walk or ride your bike there in just a few minutes. It's certainly walking distance from where I usually stay on Prinsengracht. A-dam's one of my favorite cities in the world because I can walk through the whole city center in just an hour. I don't have as much fun anywhere as I do in A-dam.

All the best.

And to the English court assemble now, 
From every region, apes of idleness!
- The Bard, _Henry IV_


----------



## The Naf (Mar 31, 2012)

mleok said:


> This was a video someone took of his Spring Drive winding.


I want my wasted minute and a half back!!!


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

The Naf said:


> I want my wasted minute and a half back!!!


I kept watching waiting for something interesting to happen. No luck. I could put a mic right up to the cheap-arse Seiko 5 I'm wearing right now and make a similar video. The SD winding does have a unique sound when winding, using either the rotor or the crown, but when I was inspecting them, it certainly wasn't audible at all until I put it right up to my ear. There is a 'chunky' feel to the crown when you wind it though.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Domo said:


> I kept watching waiting for something interesting to happen. No luck. I could put a mic right up to the cheap-arse Seiko 5 I'm wearing right now and make a similar video. The SD winding does have a unique sound when winding, using either the rotor or the crown, but when I was inspecting them, it certainly wasn't audible at all until I put it right up to my ear. There is a 'chunky' feel to the crown when you wind it though.


Sorry, I just posted that in response to ImitationOfLife's query about the sound a Spring Drive makes. It wasn't a video I created, but it demonstrates the sound of a Spring Drive winding, nothing more, nothing less. Although, in retrospect, perhaps ImitationOfLife was asking about whether a Spring Drive has a ticking sound.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

:-dYou are probably correct.


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

I do not remember hearing ticking sound. From mine. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

hpark21 said:


> I do not remember hearing ticking sound. From mine.


In the Spring Drive it's a quartz crystal that is "ticking". So no ticking sound. You could theoreticaly hear, if you have acute enough hearing, spinning sound.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

mleok said:


> Sorry, I just posted that in response to ImitationOfLife's query about the sound a Spring Drive makes. It wasn't a video I created, but it demonstrates the sound of a Spring Drive winding, nothing more, nothing less. Although, in retrospect, perhaps ImitationOfLife was asking about whether a Spring Drive has a ticking sound.


I found the noise similar to some of the toys my kids have. I have to say the noise did not sound very reassuring but I am sure there is nothing there to worry about.


----------



## Memphis1 (Feb 19, 2011)

it's funny how you guys got stuck on GS... GS is not the top of the range, Credor is, Credor definitely beats ALS, JLC, AP, PP, Rolex.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

ImitationOfLife said:


> Might be a random question, but do Spring Drive movements make any sort of noise like a regular mechanical watch? I'm left to wonder since I haven't seen a SD GS in person.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


Completely silent to the human ear.


----------



## sirgilbert357 (Mar 21, 2012)

Memphis1 said:


> it's funny how you guys got stuck on GS... GS is not the top of the range, Credor is, Credor definitely beats ALS, JLC, AP, PP, Rolex.


OHHHH, them's fightin' words, son!!!

(Not sayin' I disagree though...I have no experience with any of them, except Rolex -- and there's most certainly Grand Seikos out there that I'd take over a Rolex, so yeah...)

I think this is so subjective. There are some merits which one could compare between the brands, but at this price point, you're totally paying for the name (and probably the precious metals "tax").


----------



## KevinP. (Dec 24, 2011)

The $6000ish MSRP GS I've handled holds it's own with the $10,000+ GO, JLC, Rolex, etc. I've played with. The finish and movement is off the charts for the price; you're getting value across the board with the exception of brand prestige/recognition from the general public.

My complaint with GS though is their regular lineup has no models that are 39 mm or under, and none of their watches are under 12 mm thick. There are 2 or so models that are 39.5 mm, but even then they are over 13 mm thick.

They have such beautifully simple pieces, I just wish they could shrink some of these down a bit.


----------



## jpfgiii (Nov 5, 2012)

Memphis1 said:


> it's funny how you guys got stuck on GS... GS is not the top of the range, Credor is, Credor definitely beats ALS, JLC, AP, PP, Rolex.


Hmm.. based on personal experience? That is quite a statement, especially with regard to ALS & PP (and where is Vacheron?). Statements like that, without any clear reason or justification, are so common on these (and perhaps all) internet forums... and helps develop the 'fan-boy' image for so many, some of whom are innocent...


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

KevinP. said:


> The $6000ish MSRP GS I've handled holds it's own with the $10,000+ GO, JLC, Rolex, etc. I've played with. The finish and movement is off the charts for the price; you're getting value across the board with the exception of brand prestige/recognition from the general public.
> 
> My complaint with GS though is their regular lineup has no models that are 39 mm or under, and none of their watches are under 12 mm thick. There are 2 or so models that are 39.5 mm, but even then they are over 13 mm thick.
> 
> They have such beautifully simple pieces, I just wish they could shrink some of these down a bit.


You are right about thickness, but not diameter. There are several models that are 38 and 37mm.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

jpfgiii said:


> Hmm.. based on personal experience? That is quite a statement, especially with regard to ALS & PP (and where is Vacheron?). Statements like that, without any clear reason or justification, are so common on these (and perhaps all) internet forums... and helps develop the 'fan-boy' image for so many, some of whom are innocent...


I agree. If someone were to say "Credor competes in the same market segment as PP, Vacheron, & ALS, I'd buy that, just like I'd accept that GS is targeted towards the Rolex / Omega / GO market. If the general watch press felt GS & Credor were heads and shoulders above their competition, you would hear about it. From the GS I own, I'd say you get a lot of beautiful watch for your money, but they aren't so far above their peers that I've stopped wanting a Senator 70s, Tangente, LUC or AT.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

124Spider said:


> Completely silent to the human ear.


Which might be a bit weird at first. I know how it is when i bought my first quartz after several years. The Citizen Eco-Drive from my signature. Bizarrely, it makes no sound at all. I expected a silent ticking on each second. But it's dead silent, it makes no noise at all. It's so strange.



sirgilbert357 said:


> OHHHH, them's fightin' words, son!!!
> 
> (Not sayin' I disagree though...I have no experience with any of them, except Rolex -- and there's most certainly Grand Seikos out there that I'd take over a Rolex, so yeah...)
> 
> I think this is so subjective. There are some merits which one could compare between the brands, but at this price point, you're totally paying for the name (and probably the precious metals "tax").


Credor is higher, but doesn't follow the same simplicity philosophy as Grand Seiko. Credor is all about complications and showing off where Grand Seiko watches are more conservative, more stealthy but still very pretty too look at as they still have very fine details.


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

When I first held a spring drive I did miss the ticking sound or any sound at all. I was like something was missing. I still love it but it just doesn't feel "organic" like a traditional mechanical if that makes sense


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

While in BKK recently, I held the SBGA003 knowing I want a SBGA011 eventually. Technically and mechanically both watches are the same and differ only by dial and hands.

Build quality, presentation and finish I would say that the watch is right up there compared to my JLC Master HomeTime. Seiko doesn't use a fused gold edge at the end of the rotor like JLC does but it doesn't mean that the GS is not going to wind as efficiently as the JLC. Dollar for dollar I'd be paying less for the GS than I did with my JLC. Quality and build, I'd be getting something pretty on par to the other.

The GS ticks my boxes as it's got a real unique movement. It's case and presentation fits right up there to my desired aesthetic of a conservative watch.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

How much does a beauty like that sell for?


Memphis1 said:


> it's funny how you guys got stuck on GS... GS is not the top of the range, Credor is, Credor definitely beats ALS, JLC, AP, PP, Rolex.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

And yes, I do understand, if you have to ask...


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

dero said:


> While in BKK recently, I held the SBGA003 knowing I want a SBGA011 eventually. Technically and mechanically both watches are the same and differ only by dial and hands.
> 
> Build quality, presentation and finish I would say that the watch is right up there compared to my JLC Master HomeTime. *Seiko doesn't use a fused gold edge at the end of the rotor like JLC does but it doesn't mean that the GS is not going to wind as efficiently as the JLC*. Dollar for dollar I'd be paying less for the GS than I did with my JLC. Quality and build, I'd be getting something pretty on par to the other.
> 
> The GS ticks my boxes as it's got a real unique movement. It's case and presentation fits right up there to my desired aesthetic of a conservative watch.


Quite the opposite actually. One of the features seiko is always keen to mention is that the spring drive is very, very efficient in winding the mainspring. IIRC, a product of the efficient winding is the heavy feel to the crown when you turn it.


----------



## dero (Nov 4, 2011)

Domo said:


> Quite the opposite actually. One of the features seiko is always keen to mention is that the spring drive is very, very efficient in winding the mainspring. IIRC, a product of the efficient winding is the heavy feel to the crown when you turn it.


No disagreement to you here.

I got lost in my mire of words. What I meant to get across in words is that the winding mechanisms of the movements were designed for the movement. They are both designed to be as efficient as they need to be in order to keep the watch wound. The JLC Master puts a heavy gold trim at the edge of the rotor to force the rotor get as low as possible thus affecting a wind. It also delivers a nice aesthetic look to the display back of the watch. The Seiko doesn't need it so they have designed the rotor using just steel. It'll still deliver an efficient wind to keep the power reserve of the watch topped up through wearing.

One looks more blingy because of the gold edge at the end of the rotor, the other looks less blingy compared to the other because it doesn't have it.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

Some GSes use a titanium rotor with tungsten weight. But another difference between their winding mechanisms, at least the 899, is that Seikos are bidirectional and the current Master Control is unidirectional winding. 

Oddly, the winding system in a spring drive is basically totally different than the current GS automatics. It's very similar to the old 9S55, but the 9S65 and 9S85 completely threw the old system away and went with a more conventional design. It'll be interesting to see if the next wave of spring drive movements will keep the magic lever or move to the new system. But whatever the case, the SD is apparently hyper-efficiently wound, and using automatic winders is explicitly forbidden on them.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

CitizenM said:


> But whatever the case, the SD is apparently hyper-efficiently wound, and using automatic winders is explicitly forbidden on them.


Why exactly? How is the gentle rotation of the winder different from the unpredictable and sometimes quite violent movements of the wrist?


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Why exactly? How is the gentle rotation of the winder different from the unpredictable and sometimes quite violent movements of the wrist?


I've always wondered this. Also why there are TPD settings on winders - doesn't make sense.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

geoffbot said:


> I've always wondered this. Also why there are TPD settings on winders - doesn't make sense.


The spring drive winds very quickly with normal use. I am guessing that they say no winder because it will quickly be fully wound and possibly creating undesirable wear and tear afterwards, or maybe it boils down to the number of equivalent TPD on and off the winder or wrist and somehow the winder shortens the service interval. I don't know why, but I'm sure they have a good reason.

Older watches can't be over-wound so the TPD would be very important. I'm not sure if there is undesirable wear and tear from rotating while fully wound with today's contemporary movements. I think not, but something about mechanisms working to bypass winding actually bugs me. I guess because I don't know how it works.

FYI, you can hear the spring drive auto winding mechanism, so it's not entirely silent.


----------



## Harsha_code (Jun 13, 2013)

cabfrank said:


> How much does a beauty like that sell for?


Its about $400,000. I think its called the Credor Sonnerie.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

geoffbot said:


> Also why there are TPD settings on winders - doesn't make sense.


Well, this is somewhat reasonable in order to minimise the "wear&tear" of both the winding mechanism of the watch and of the winder. If you need 1000 turns per day for the watch to be fully powered anything more is not doing anything beneficial neither for the watch nor for the winder.

The problem is that sometimes the highest TPD setting is not enough to maintain the watch fully winded. For example the one that I have has a maximum 1800 TPD and I can see on a Seagull with a power reserve indicator that it is slowly losing the power - from fully winded to zero in about a month or so. If I have a watch on a wrist the opposite happens - the watch gains power and if I start with barely winded watch in a week or two on the wrist the watch is fully winded and than of course stays so as long as it is on the wrist. So the winder would need at least TPD 2000 or 2500 (for that particular Seagull) to mimick the movements of the wrist.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Robotaz said:


> The spring drive winds very quickly with normal use. I am guessing that they say no winder because it will quickly be fully wound and possibly creating undesirable wear and tear afterwards, or maybe it boils down to the number of equivalent TPD on and off the winder or wrist and somehow the winder shortens the service interval. I don't know why, but I'm sure they have a good reason.
> 
> Older watches can't be over-wound so the TPD would be very important. I'm not sure if there is undesirable wear and tear from rotating while fully wound with today's contemporary movements. I think not, but something about mechanisms working to bypass winding actually bugs me. I guess because I don't know how it works..


It still doesn't make sense. The older watches can't be over-wound, but that applies only to the hand winding watches, not to automatics. Because - as I wrote above - a watch on a wrist almost inevitably "over-winds", so there must be a mechanism to prevent possible damage. You cannot predict the exact activity level of each individual watch wearer. And when designing the watch a rather low activity should be predicted, because otherwise the automatic watches would have a tendency to stop after a certain period of time. On the other hand that means that if your activity level is above the minimal (or average) predicted by the designer, your watch is over-wound all the time. And that applies also to Spring Drive.


----------



## KevinP. (Dec 24, 2011)

gagnello said:


> You are right about thickness, but not diameter. There are several models that are 38 and 37mm.


You're right! The smallest GS with a Spring Drive is 39 mm by 12.5 mm and the smallest mechanical is 37 mm x 13.3 mm or 38 mm x 13.5 mm.

Blah, 13+ mm seems disproportionate to a 37/38 mm thickness.


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

Yeah but one's wrist has no overwind protection, and the watch is designed to be worn, I believe, on the wrist!


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

KevinP. said:


> You're right! The smallest GS with a Spring Drive is 39 mm by 12.5 mm and the smallest mechanical is 37 mm x 13.3 mm or 38 mm x 13.5 mm.
> 
> Blah, 13+ mm seems disproportionate to a 37/38 mm thickness.


That was the first thing I noticed when I was looking at a GS high beat, especially since their old (late 60s) models are pretty svelte. They hug the wrist (IMHO) better than their thickness would suggest, but still it's on the fat side for a sporty dress watch.

The 39 mm x 12.5 mm SD models aren't bad on the wrist at all. For example, a Rolex Datejust is 35mm diameter and 11.7 mm high. An Omega Aqua Terra is 38.5 mm diameter and 13.5mm high.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Domo said:


> Quite the opposite actually. One of the features seiko is always keen to mention is that the spring drive is very, very efficient in winding the mainspring. IIRC, a product of the efficient winding is the heavy feel to the crown when you turn it.


Actually no other watch has a winding as efficient as the Seiko 5 that i have (probably same applies to all 7S26). When it's topped i have to make like 4 swings and the second hand will tick for several minutes. Where i tried the same with Steinhart, Sea-Gull, Orient, they all needed quite more swinging around to even start working. But not Seiko 5.

The bidirectional winding with the magic lever seems to work incredibly well.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

The spring drive automatics have all the normal overwind protection mechanisms that any other automatic has. It's unclear to me why Seiko claims an automatic watch winder will damage it, although to be fair, Seiko isn't saying using one once will cause the watch to explode. Perhaps they mean over several years of "overwinding." The spring drive's 72 hour power reserve predates the 9S65's, in terms of when the movements were designed, and I sometimes wonder if substantially less energy is needed to run an SD, and therefore, substantially less energy is needed in the mainspring for 72 hours of reserve, and therefore, all things being equal in terms of the automatic winding system, it requires much less energy to wind it. Of course, the relevance of that possibility is predicated on the idea that even being worn it isn't fully wound all the time, in which case, it would run into the same issue. If I remember I'll ask a Grand Seiko watchmaker about it when they come by Timeless on the 12th.


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

^^^ Yes, please do ask these questions at Timeless. I can't come down, but I would love to more than you can imagine. It will be very fun.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

CitizenM said:


> Of course, the relevance of that possibility is predicated on the idea that even being worn it isn't fully wound all the time, in which case, it would run into the same issue. If I remember I'll ask a Grand Seiko watchmaker about it when they come by Timeless on the 12th.


I'm not particularly active but my left wrist has on average the same effect on the watch as approximatelly 2000-2500 daily turns on a winder (as measured by my only watch with a power reserve indicator). So how can a winder at 1000 TPD be more harmfull to the watch than wearing it?


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

I find it as vexing as you guys do. And are all winders created equally as it relates to the spring drive? 

All we can really isolate is that it has little to nothing to do with the actual automatic winding system (my best guess) since it's virtually identical to the one is a 9S55 or any number of other magic lever Seikos which don't carry this warning.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

I have T-shirts older than Credor... just sayin. :-s 


;-)


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> I have T-shirts older than Credor... just sayin. :-s
> 
> ;-)


And most histories are exaggerated or entirely non-linear. I couldn't care less about history, personally.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

geoffbot said:


> And most histories are exaggerated or entirely non-linear. I couldn't care less about history, personally.


One good example of this exaggeration is Breguet. The way they're marketed, you'd think Breguet's great grandkids made the watches in his house in Switzerland.

The reality couldn't be further from the truth.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lorsban said:


> One good example of this exaggeration is Breguet. The way they're marketed, you'd think Breguet's great grandkids made the watches in his house in Switzerland.
> 
> The reality couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Good example is also everything based in Glashütte.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

It'll probably come as no surprise, but I am actually very impressed by Seiko's history. People complain about how new it is (1881) but don't seem to have the same hangups about Rolex or Nomos etc. I think there is this misconception that even though a particular European company may not be that old, it's attached to a much older clock making (not really watches at that point) tradition, as opposed to Japan or Asia. And this is true with regard to Europe, but it's not like Japan suddenly started making clocks in 1881. Japan, and Asia in general, had been making clocks in the Asian tradition for a very long time. Really what Seiko marks is the first successful Western-style watchmaker in Japan, but Hattori didn't just spring up one day and start making Western clocks. He was fixing Western clocks and making the Asian equivalent of them before he opened up Seikosha, and this is what gave him a huge competitive edge when Japan switched to all things Western in the restoration. And, at any rate, not that many companies can claim the uninterrupted provenance of Seiko. 

Which is all not to say that Seiko's history is superior, merely that it should be respected.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> Good example is also everything based in Glashütte.


Or worse, anything Swiss made. I find it so boring. Swiss this, swiss that, bah....

@CitizenM
That's exactly why adore Japanese and Chinese history, their traditions and way of thinking and life.

I've also checked certain stuff at Seiko historical museum and there were clocks that measured time in a different way than those in Europe, yet, they were still measuring the same thing (time). So Seiko didn't just fall from the sky and started making time measuring devices, but Seiko did make several historical milestones, one of which is the first quartz watch. Sure Swiss were also developing it but Seiko did it first. And Seiko was also the first to make affordable mechanical watches . And they started that story 50 years ago with Seiko 5, something Swiss only managed to make now in 2013 with Sistem51 (which is still nowhere to be actually seen)...

Or how Chinese Sea-Gull, only ~50 years ago turned into currently the largest mechanical movement manufacturer. Yes, it's the worlds largest manufacturer, beating even ETA. And while they do have a lot of clones and rather primitive movements, but they also have their own in-house developed and made super complex torubillons.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

I know this is almost heresy to say - but I am incredibly smitten with the Grand Seiko quartz series (SBGX series). On a leather strap it feels like an ideal "once a week" dress watch.... the fact that it's the most cost effective way to enter the GS line up doesn't hurt either....

Came close to buying one for my wedding, until I found a local Rolex Air-King for a really good deal.


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> I know this is almost heresy to say - but I am incredibly smitten with the Grand Seiko quartz series (SBGX series). On a leather strap it feels like an ideal "once a week" dress watch.... the fact that it's the most cost effective way to enter the GS line up doesn't hurt either....
> 
> Came close to buying one for my wedding, until I found a local Rolex Air-King for a really good deal.


Grand Seiko quartz is the only WUS-approved quartz.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

It is a HAQ, but it doesn't exactly have the same charm as automatics or SpringDrive...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

RejZoR said:


> It is a HAQ, but it doesn't exactly have the same charm as automatics or SpringDrive...


Yeah, but I have a couple automatics. And Spring Drive doesn't really do it for me. I'm a man of extremes. I either want full on mechanical, or a lower priced (and equally accurate), and far more reliable quartz.

I like the idea of the quartz GS's because of the build quality of the cases / dials, the hyper-accurate nature of the movement, and the inherent 'set it and forget it' convenience of a quartz. Not to mention the 1/2 off price differential between an entry level, standard, automatic and the quartz models.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> I know this is almost heresy to say - but I am incredibly smitten with the Grand Seiko quartz series (SBGX series). On a leather strap it feels like an ideal "once a week" dress watch.... the fact that it's the most cost effective way to enter the GS line up doesn't hurt either....
> 
> Came close to buying one for my wedding, until I found a local Rolex Air-King for a really good deal.


I bought an SBGX103. Who can say no to 5s/year accuracy and drop dead gorgeous?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

geoffbot said:


> Grand Seiko quartz is the only WUS-approved quartz.


Sorry mate, not quite.
You're also allowed to by Citizen and of course, don't forget the Seamaster Pro Quartz.
Sometimes, when the stars align, you're allowed to contemplate a Breitling Superquartz.



RejZoR said:


> Or worse, anything Swiss made. I find it so boring. Swiss this, swiss that, bah....


There is no difference between your attitude towards Swiss brands and the attitude towards Japanese brands that you are alluding to in the above quote.
Well, there is, most people who prefer Swiss brands don't feel the need to start threads to say why they think something Swiss is a waste of time.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> It is a HAQ, but it doesn't exactly have the same charm as automatics or SpringDrive...


A Grand Seiko quartz is approximately $2000. With the exception of a Frederique Constant Manufacture movement, or a Zenith Elite at an extreme discount, the automatic movements you'll typically find at that price point are just the usual suspects of an ETA 2824-2, ETA 2892-2, ETA/Valjoux 7750, ETA/Unitas 6497, Seiko 6R15/6R20, or Miyota 9015, and I don't really consider these to be more charming than a Seiko 9F62, which at least has the distinction of being one of the most exceptional quartz movements in production today.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> Sorry mate, not quite.
> You're also allowed to by Citizen and of course, don't forget the Seamaster Pro Quartz.
> Sometimes, when the stars align, you're allowed to contemplate a Breitling Superquartz.
> 
> ...


Is it? I seem to be the only one thinking the other way around... the rest is Swiss = God, japanese = "It's just a Seiko". Haven't seen any other case that was the opposite apart from those where i was involved...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

RejZoR said:


> Is it? I seem to be the only one thinking the other way around... the rest is Swiss = God, japanese = "It's just a Seiko". Haven't seen any other case that was the opposite apart from those where i was involved...


I think you're doing a real disservice to the members of this forum when you say that. A guy like CitizenM seems, to my mind, to be the height of objectivity when it comes to analysis - and an undisputed fan of Seiko and Grand Seiko at the same time.

And that's forgetting, the number of times that Grand Seiko is brought up as a real alternative for people looking to buy a watch in the $2000 - $10 000 range. By all sorts of people on this board.

If anything, I find that the members of this board go out of their way to suggest that Grand Seiko is a legitimate and worthy competitor to the high end Swiss brands (heck, just read through this very thread!), with some people taking it a little too far, and perhaps over hyping the Grand Seiko line.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> And that's forgetting, the number of times that Grand Seiko is brought up as a real alternative for people looking to buy a watch in the $2000 - $10 000 range. By all sorts of people on this board.


It's not even GS watches that I'm thinking about.
Given that they aren't exactly widely available in the US is probably the number cause of them not having any sort of "reputation" beyond anecdotal recital of other people's experiences.
SARB035 and 065 are also regular recommendations in their price range, as is the MM300 and 600 in theirs, even if, like the GS watches, they aren't widely available.

By and large, people here recommend a range of watches by a range of makers from a range of countries.
Unlike him, who consistently spits on Swiss and praises Japanese; doing exactly what he is accusing the Japanese haters of doing.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> Is it? I seem to be the only one thinking the other way around... the rest is Swiss = God, japanese = "It's just a Seiko". Haven't seen any other case that was the opposite apart from those where i was involved...


The only instance in which your obsession with Seiko is an outlier on this forum is the number of times in which you cite a Seiko 5 with a 7S26 movement as being a competitor to Swiss watches in the sub $1000 price range. Seiko 5s are wonderful watches for the price, but they truly don't compete in that market segment. At least give the JDM Seiko SARBs a try so that your comparisons come across as being a bit more realistic and informed.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> There is no difference between your attitude towards Swiss brands and the attitude towards Japanese brands that you are alluding to in the above quote.
> Well, there is, most people who prefer Swiss brands don't feel the need to start threads to say why they think something Swiss is a waste of time.


I agree. While I'm not much of a fan of those who lionize the Swiss prestige brands just because they're Swiss, I also don't like Seiko merely because they're not Swiss.

Many fine watches are made in Switzerland; but a watch is not special merely because it's from Switzerland (or even because it's from one of the fine Swiss brands). And the same is true of Japan.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

I want to avoid the debate of whether a Grand Seiko is better than JLC, Girard Perregaux or the "Big Three." I just don't see the usefulness of that debate. I'd rather evaluate every watch on its own merits. 

With that in mind, I can say that the Grand Seiko is the only watch that I personally would every pay more than $3,000 for. I've been fortunate enough to buy some very nice watches at some deeply discounted prices because one of my best clients is a pawn broker who buys a lot of high-end watches. He's offered me some exquisite watches before for remarkable prices, but I've stuck to my rule that I would never go above $3,000 for a watch -- and, yes, that is an entirely arbitrary and personal number for me. However, I would gladly break that rule for a Grand Seiko.

Why? Two reasons:

1. I've held a Grand Seiko on two occasions, and the memory still sticks with me. Of all the superb watches I've held and looked at before, none of them had the same feel of quality and understated beauty as the GS had. No watch has matched the subtle layers of beauty that the GS has. This is not to say that a JLC or VC is not a quality watch; I would never make such an outlandish claim. They are remarkable time pieces, and they feel different as soon as you pick them up, but the GS felt even different from them. I can't put my finger on it, but something just struck me about the GS. The more you look at a GS, the more it reveals itself. 

2. The movement of the Grand Seiko is genuinely unique. Swiss watch movements from high-end producers are gorgeous and remarkable pieces of engineering, but I don't think they're as inventive as what Seiko has done with its 9R Spring Drive series of movements. Yes, the Swiss movements are more decorative, but that's not where Seiko's emphasis is. 

As for those calling the GS a boring-looking watch, I simply don't understand that. Is a Calatrava a boring watch? What about a DeVille? How about a Datejust? All of these watches have elegant, understated designs that only reveal their true beauty upon close inspection -- just as the Grand Seiko does. 

The Grand Seiko is a superb watch that stands on its own merits. The only reason we even have debates like this is because the word following "Grand" is "Seiko." If the same watches were made by any of the Big Three or another Swiss manufacturer, we'd be talking about what marvelous aesthetic and engineering achievements they were -- and we'd also be paying about seven or eight times more than what the GS goes for.


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

mleok said:


> The only instance in which your obsession with Seiko is an outlier on this forum is the number of times in which you cite a Seiko 5 with a 7S26 movement as being a competitor to Swiss watches in the sub $1000 price range. Seiko 5s are wonderful watches for the price, but they truly don't compete in that market segment. At least give the JDM Seiko SARBs a try so that your comparisons come across as being a bit more realistic and informed.


Now you're just plain making things up. Oh, it's mleok, who else...


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

mleok said:


> The only instance in which your obsession with Seiko is an outlier on this forum is the number of times in which you cite a Seiko 5 with a 7S26 movement as being a competitor to Swiss watches in the sub $1000 price range. Seiko 5s are wonderful watches for the price, but they truly don't compete in that market segment. At least give the JDM Seiko SARBs a try so that your comparisons come across as being a bit more realistic and informed.


That's a good point, Seiko fan boys (and I'm a Seiko fan) can be just as guilty of xenophobia when it comes to watches. Some legitimately think their 100 buck Seiko 5 is as good as a 1K+ Swiss auto and it's simply not. They completely dismiss any possibility that centuries of watch making have made the Swiss pretty good at it.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> They completely dismiss any possibility that centuries of watch making have made the Swiss pretty good at it.


And they are quite right at that. All those centuries have in fact zero effect on the quality of a particular watch. Thinking that a Swiss made watch is good (or better than a watch made in some other country) _because _of all those centuries of watchmaking is a blatant logical fallacy. Non sequitur. Some Swiss made watches are (very) good, but not _because _they are made in Confœderatio Helvetia.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And they are quite right at that. All those centuries have in fact zero effect on the quality of a particular watch. Thinking that a Swiss made watch is good (or better than a watch made in some other country) _because _of all those centuries of watchmaking is a blatant logical fallacy. Non sequitur. Some Swiss made watches are (very) good, but not _because _they are made in Confœderatio Helvetia.


I don't think it's a logical fallacy to believe decades and centuries of manufacturing watches and movements, refining process and qc benefits those makers with the product they put out.

Experience means a lot when it comes to refinement and manufacture.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And they are quite right at that. All those centuries have in fact zero effect on the quality of a particular watch. Thinking that a Swiss made watch is good (or better than a watch made in some other country) _because _of all those centuries of watchmaking is a blatant logical fallacy. Non sequitur. Some Swiss made watches are (very) good, but not _because _they are made in Confœderatio Helvetia.





Mike_Dowling said:


> I don't think it's a logical fallacy to believe decades and centuries of manufacturing watches and movements, refining process and qc benefits those makers with the product they put out.
> 
> Experience means a lot when it comes to refinement and manufacture.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


We're starting this crazy Japanese vs. Swiss argument again, which always ends up in the exact same place.

I'll say this: I run across very few WIS who simply throw down the gauntlet and say something along the lines of, "Swiss watches are overrated dross" or "Japanese watches are rubbish compared to their Swiss counterparts." Most of us on WUS are knowledgeable enough to know that the Swiss and Japanese are both capable of making excellent watches. I have both kinds and am very happy with them.

The one thing I will say in defense of the Japanese is this: they present outstanding value for the money -- and much better value, in fact, than their Swiss counterparts. This is NOT to say that Japanese watches are better or not than Swiss. However, the Swiss know that they can get a premium for their products because they're Swiss, whereas the Japanese know they can't charge as much for their watches precisely because they're not Swiss. I suppose this is why my preference is for Japanese movements. If I know that I can get a basic Japanese movement that is every bit as good as a comparable basic Swiss movement, then I'd rather save a few hundred bucks and not worry about whether my watch says "Swiss Made" on it.

This goes back to my point about the Grand Seiko and its movement. I think the vast majority of us WIS -- regardless of whether we own or even want to own a GS -- can acknowledge that GS movements are innovative and outstanding, and fare well when set up against comparable Swiss luxury watches. But the GS comes in at a cost of half to a third of their Swiss competitors. As a consumer, that's something that's appealing to me.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

CitizenM said:


> It'll probably come as no surprise, but I am actually very impressed by Seiko's history. People complain about how new it is (1881) but don't seem to have the same hangups about Rolex or Nomos etc. I think there is this misconception that even though a particular European company may not be that old, it's attached to a much older clock making (not really watches at that point) tradition, as opposed to Japan or Asia. And this is true with regard to Europe, but it's not like Japan suddenly started making clocks in 1881. Japan, and Asia in general, had been making clocks in the Asian tradition for a very long time. Really what Seiko marks is the first successful Western-style watchmaker in Japan, but Hattori didn't just spring up one day and start making Western clocks. He was fixing Western clocks and making the Asian equivalent of them before he opened up Seikosha, and this is what gave him a huge competitive edge when Japan switched to all things Western in the restoration. And, at any rate, not that many companies can claim the uninterrupted provenance of Seiko.
> 
> Which is all not to say that Seiko's history is superior, merely that it should be respected.


Absolutely right.

Seiko's image problem has nothing to do with history, rather, it has everything to do with their "low-end" market dominance. Traditionally, they've made watches from low to high end, except they kept the high end mostly in Japan. The rest of the world only saw their low end stuff, hence the image.

The Swiss on the other hand made sure to market themselves as exclusive and high end from the start. So, even if they make low end watches, that "Swiss Made" mark automatically gives the watch that extra prestige (undeserved?).

The issue Seiko has image wise in the west is basically easily solved by product placement. But the reality is, Seiko Japan doesn't really care if their image is negative abroad since, again, they have a solid image in their main market in Japan. So, we most likely won't see much improvement in the way of marketing Seiko.

Word of mouth from the few avid fans seems to be the main driving force of improving Seiko's image.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

> The one thing I will say in defense of the Japanese is this: they present outstanding value for the money -- and much better value, in fact, than their Swiss counterparts.


I'm not sure I agree with that. I have two Seikos, nice watches, but I'm not sure I couldn't get a Swiss counterpart for near the same money with the same level of quality, particularly Tissot or Hamilton in the $400 $600 range. Sorry but a 6r movement imo is no eta equivalent and I own two watches with a 6r in it.

I sold my Tuna and it was an $800+ quartz watch with mineral crystal. That's amazing value?

The outstanding value of Japanese watches can be overstated. To me a Seiko 5 feels like a $100 watch.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

crazy


Harsha_code said:


> Its about $400,000. I think its called the Credor Sonnerie.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Beefalope said:


> The one thing I will say in defense of the Japanese is this: they present outstanding value for the money -- and much better value, in fact, than their Swiss counterparts. This is NOT to say that Japanese watches are better or not than Swiss. However, the Swiss know that they can get a premium for their products because they're Swiss, whereas the Japanese know they can't charge as much for their watches precisely because they're not Swiss. I suppose this is why my preference is for Japanese movements. If I know that I can get a basic Japanese movement that is every bit as good as a comparable basic Swiss movement, then I'd rather save a few hundred bucks and not worry about whether my watch says "Swiss Made" on it.


I'm not 100% convinced about the 'value for dollar' advantage for Seiko either, though. I've never seen an SARB up close, and I definitely don't doubt that their an impressive buy for the money. But even after having read the reviews, seen the pictures, and poised my mouse over Seiya's "Buy" button, I'm still not sure they are that much of a better buy than a lot of the sub $1000 Hamiltons or Tissots or Orises.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

I have a SARB035, and I love the watch, but I feel like I got a $400 watch not that I beat the system and got a watch on par with a $1000+ Swiss auto.

It's a great watch and good value but that can be said about a lot of brands. Factoring in resale the SARB035 is a better buy than Tissot or Hamilton.

I like Swiss watches, and Germany watches, and Japanese watches. I like watches. I think we go off the rails when we start imparting some mythical quality to either. On the Swiss side it's a bit of snobbery, on the Japanese side it's the "anti" movement. Where people convince themselves of unreal value where it doesn't exist just to further their view.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I have a SARB035, and I love the watch, but I feel like I got a $400 watch not that I beat the system and got a watch on par with a $1000+ Swiss auto.
> 
> It's a great watch and good value but that can be said about a lot of brands. Factoring in resale the SARB035 is a better buy than Tissot or Hamilton.
> 
> ...


I have owned a SARB and Sumo, great watches for the price but I couldn't agree more. It gets pretty ridiculous reading posts that claim the Sumo is better than a SMP or that it would sell for the same price as one if it were Swiss made.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. I have two Seikos, nice watches, but I'm not sure I couldn't get a Swiss counterpart for near the same money with the same level of quality, particularly Tissot or Hamilton in the $400 $600 range. Sorry but a 6r movement imo is no eta equivalent and I own two watches with a 6r in it.
> 
> I sold my Tuna and it was an $800+ quartz watch with mineral crystal. That's amazing value?
> 
> ...


By what measure is an entry level ETA movement better than, for example, a 6R15, or for that matter a 7s26? Fine, so the 7s26 doesn't hack (I don't care) or hand wind (I care very, very little; once the watch is on my wrist, it'll have plenty of power). When we're talking about entry level automatic movements, the single most important characteristic for me is reliability. Those Seiko movements are tremendously reliable and can go for many, many years without servicing. I can get new a Seiko Monster with a 7s26 for $175 or so on sale. What new Swiss automatic can I get in that price range? And that Monster will feel like it's more than a $175 watch, by the way, just like a Seiko Alpinist with a 6R15 will feel like it's more than a $450-$500 watch.

As for your $800 Tuna with a quartz movement, I'm not sure why anyone would pay that much for any quartz watch. My most expensive quartz is a $400 Tissot that was bought for me as a gift a long time ago. With all due respect, it's not Seiko's fault you were willing to pay that much for a quartz, but I can find plenty of Swiss quartz Breitlings or Tags that are a heck of a lot more than $800 -- and many more ludicrously priced French Cartiers that have quartz movements. Even a high-end quartz movement -- insofar as I'm willing to acknowledge that such a thing even exists -- from Japan is more reasonably priced than something comparable from the Swiss.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

I think that the higher-end Seikos present a very attractive value proposition against the comparable (in price) Swiss offerings. And I think that if the Swiss were marketing the Spring Drive movement in quality cases, they would cost significantly more than Seiko charges for them (and the mechanical fanbois wouldn't be trashing it quite so mindlessly).

I'm not familiar with the sub-US$1000 watch market, but I have serious reservations about whether Seiko is clearly a better value than some trustworthy Swiss names in that price range.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Beefalope said:


> By what measure is an entry level ETA movement better than, for example, a 6R15, or for that matter a 7s26? Fine, so the 7s26 doesn't hack (I don't care) or hand wind (I care very, very little; once the watch is on my wrist, it'll have plenty of power). When we're talking about entry level automatic movements, the single most important characteristic for me is reliability. Those Seiko movements are tremendously reliable and can go for many, many years without servicing. I can get new a Seiko Monster with a 7s26 for $175 or so on sale. What new Swiss automatic can I get in that price range? And that Monster will feel like it's more than a $175 watch, by the way, just like a Seiko Alpinist with a 6R15 will feel like it's more than a $450-$500 watch.
> 
> As for your $800 Tuna with a quartz movement, I'm not sure why anyone would pay that much for any quartz watch. My most expensive quartz is a $400 Tissot that was bought for me as a gift a long time ago. With all due respect, it's not Seiko's fault you were willing to pay that much for a quartz, but I can find plenty of Swiss quartz Breitlings or Tags that are a heck of a lot more than $800 -- and many more ludicrously priced French Cartiers that have quartz movements. Even a high-end quartz movement -- insofar as I'm willing to acknowledge that such a thing even exists -- from Japan is more reasonably priced than something comparable from the Swiss.


Well first, I own a 7S26 in my SKX watch. I can tell you right now, from a feel perspective (winding, rotor wobble, etc.), from a time keeping perspective, from a utility perspective (hacking, etc.) and from a power (or perhaps winding efficiency) perspective the 7S26 was noticeably less effective than my lower-lever 2824 in my Hamilton. That SKX, buy the way, is a fantastic watch. I use it diving, I use it swimming, I use it occasionally as a casual watch. It feels just like what it is - a $150 - $250 watch. It in no way feels like more than that - in any respect.

Second, your second point is really ridiculous. Even when someone complains about what Seiko offers, for the money, you claim that's nothing against Seiko - it's the purchasers fault. No. It's a statement to what Seiko offers, and what they charge for it.

Also - Grand Seiko (as just very recently discussed), offers very nice, very high quality HEQs that are similar in price to the HEQs you buy from the Swiss companies - ie. around $2000.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> I think that the higher-end Seikos present a very attractive value proposition against the comparable (in price) Swiss offerings. And I think that if the Swiss were marketing the Spring Drive movement in quality cases, they would cost significantly more than Seiko charges for them (and the mechanical fanbois wouldn't be trashing it quite so mindlessly).
> 
> I'm not familiar with the sub-US$1000 watch market, but I have serious reservations about whether Seiko is clearly a better value than some trustworthy Swiss names in that price range.


Who's mindlessly trashing the Springdrive?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Beefalope said:


> By what measure is an entry level ETA movement better than, for example, a 6R15, or for that matter a 7s26? Fine, so the 7s26 doesn't hack (I don't care) or hand wind (I care very, very little; once the watch is on my wrist, it'll have plenty of power). When we're talking about entry level automatic movements, the single most important characteristic for me is reliability. Those Seiko movements are tremendously reliable and can go for many, many years without servicing. I can get new a Seiko Monster with a 7s26 for $175 or so on sale. What new Swiss automatic can I get in that price range? And that Monster will feel like it's more than a $175 watch, by the way, just like a Seiko Alpinist with a 6R15 will feel like it's more than a $450-$500 watch.


Isochronism, higher beat rate, and lower positional variance, tends to favor standard grade ETA 2824-2 movements. The main advantage of the 6R15(C) is the slightly increased power reserve, and the increased robustness to neglect, possibly due to the lower beat rate, and the elegant Magic lever winding mechanism.

I have a Seiko SARB033 on my wrist at this very moment, and have had a Tissot Le Locle with an ETA 2824-2, and a Hamilton Khaki King with a ETA 2834-2, and all three watches were under $400 brand new when I purchased them. I have to concur with Mike_Dowling and mew88 that the quality of construction is comparable across these three watches, and that they offer a very similar value proposition in my opinion.

I would say that the higher-end models, like a Seiko SARB023/025, and a Citizen Signature Automatic do offer better value than their Swiss counterparts, but not two to three times the value.

What distinguishes Grand Seiko is that it offers a very understated watch that is executed supremely well.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> Who's mindlessly trashing the Springdrive?


 It's "Spring Drive." And lots of folks here do; not on this thread, perhaps, but it happens all the time around here.

Any other questions?


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Beefalope said:


> I can get new a Seiko Monster with a 7s26 for $175 or so on sale. What new Swiss automatic can I get in that price range? And that Monster will feel like it's more than a $175 watch, by the way, just like a Seiko Alpinist with a 6R15 will feel like it's more than a $450-$500 watch.


Completely subjective and I disagree on both, the Seiko Monster to me is hideous with a cheap workhorse movement, the Seiko Alpinist feels and looks like a $500 watch.

My experience is anecdotal and limited but my eta's have simply out-performed my 6r's. All my eta's were near chronometer spec out of the box, my 6r's look utilitarian and both would need work to be on par with the eta's I've owned. But this argument has been done 1000 times and I have _no_ interest in repeating it.

As for the Tuna, I agree it's way overpriced simply because it's a cult watch, it's cool, but it is not any sort of "outstanding value", if it were $350.00 it would be a solid value, at $800.00+ it's ridiculously overpriced. Luckily it has excellent resale and I lost very little (probably the only reason it could be considered a decent value, resale). Why are you comparing Cartier's with a Seiko Tuna again?


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> It's "Spring Drive." And lots of folks here do; not on this thread, perhaps, but it happens all the time around here.
> 
> Any other questions?


Well I haven't seen it.

And no, I don't have any other questions for you.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> Well first, I own a 7S26 in my SKX watch. I can tell you right now, from a feel perspective (winding, rotor wobble, etc.), from a time keeping perspective, from a utility perspective (hacking, etc.) and from a power (or perhaps winding efficiency) perspective the 7S26 was noticeably less effective than my lower-lever 2824 in my Hamilton. That SKX, buy the way, is a fantastic watch. I use it diving, I use it swimming, I use it occasionally as a casual watch. It feels just like what it is - a $150 - $250 watch. It in no way feels like more than that - in any respect.
> 
> Second, your second point is really ridiculous. Even when someone complains about what Seiko offers, for the money, you claim that's nothing against Seiko - it's the purchasers fault. No. It's a statement to what Seiko offers, and what they charge for it.
> 
> Also - Grand Seiko (as just very recently discussed), offers very nice, very high quality HEQs that are similar in price to the HEQs you buy from the Swiss companies - ie. around $2000.


I'm sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a rip about hacking and cares that my $200 watch loses an extra second per day -- or less -- versus my $500 watch. If I cared about sterling accuracy in my entry level watch, I'd buy another quartz -- and not for $800, by the way.

Instead of pointing out the existence of HEQs for $2,000 or more, how about finding a new Swiss automatic that sells for under $350? Good luck with that, by the way. I know I can find plenty of solid Seikos and Orients under that price range. After you're done looking, come back and talk to me -- with a straight face -- about how Japanese watches are not a good value compared to their Swiss counterparts.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Beefalope said:


> I'm sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a rip about hacking and cares that my $200 watch loses an extra second per day -- or less -- versus my $500 watch. If I cared about sterling accuracy in my entry level watch, I'd buy another quartz -- and not for $800, by the way.
> 
> Instead of pointing out the existence of HEQs for $2,000 or more, how about finding a new Swiss automatic that sells for under $350? Good luck with that, by the way. I know I can find plenty of solid Seikos and Orients under that price range. After you're done looking, come back and talk to me -- with a straight face -- about how Japanese watches are not a good value compared to their Swiss counterparts.


You're confusing two issues. One is who makes the cheapest mechanical watch. No doubt you'll find that Seiko makes a cheaper mechanical watch than any swiss brand. That I've seen. The second issue is whether, dollar for dollar, a $500 - $600 Seiko is a better value than a $500 - $600 Hamilton or Tissot or Oris. And I would say that it's not. You get similar quality across that price range, irrespective of what brand you buy.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> You're confusing two issues. One is who makes the cheapest mechanical watch. No doubt you'll find that Seiko makes a cheaper mechanical watch than any swiss brand. That I've seen. The second issue is whether, dollar for dollar, a $500 - $600 Seiko is a better value than a $500 - $600 Hamilton or Tissot or Oris. And I would say that it's not. You get similar quality across that price range, irrespective of what brand you buy.


Firmly with you, Mike and the rest of the non-aggressive and without an agenda posters on this thread.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> I want to avoid the debate of whether a Grand Seiko is better than JLC, Girard Perregaux or the "Big Three." I just don't see the usefulness of that debate. I'd rather evaluate every watch on its own merits....
> 
> .....If the same watches were made by any of the Big Three or another Swiss manufacturer, we'd be talking about what marvelous aesthetic and engineering achievements they were -- and we'd also be paying about seven or eight times more than what the GS goes for.


I'm not sure how good a job you're doing in avoiding a debate by participating in one, but ok.

In this age of wonders we are living in people typically don't pay much premium for innovation, so they don't think they should in watches either, especially if that innovation is equal in performance to tech that's been around for 40 years. I think GS SDs are really cool and I want one, but no way would I pay $35-40k, even if it said PP on the dial.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> You're confusing two issues. One is who makes the cheapest mechanical watch. No doubt you'll find that Seiko makes a cheaper mechanical watch than any swiss brand. That I've seen. The second issue is whether, dollar for dollar, a $500 - $600 Seiko is a better value than a $500 - $600 Hamilton or Tissot or Oris. And I would say that it's not. You get similar quality across that price range, irrespective of what brand you buy.


As for the mid-range Swiss and Japanese watches ($500 to $1,500 is what I consider mid-range), I can concede the point. For example, the Seiko Alpinist and Hamilton Khaki Field Auto -- both of which are terrific watches that I own and am very happy with -- are very comparable to one another in terms of price and performance. I can't say that one is a better value than the other, since I see both of them as very good values. Same goes for a lot of the 2824-2 watches.

Ok, would these statements be more acceptable?

1. The Japanese provide a great deal of bang for the buck when they offer watches with reliable automatic movements for under $200.

2. The Grand Seiko in particular offers a great deal of bang for the buck considering what it offers -- remarkable precision for an automatic, hand assembly, superb finishing, an innovative in-house movement that is unlike anything else around -- compared to its Swiss competitors. I can't think of a similarly priced Swiss watch that costs what the GS costs. There may be one, but I can't think of it right now.

3. In the upper mid-range (say $1,500 to $3,000), Seiko can offer a good deal of value. There are Spring Drive watches that can be had under $3k. That's a lot of watch for the money -- you're getting a novel in-house movement for well under anything the Swiss would charge you for something this.

Again, just to reiterate the point, I have absolutely nothing against Swiss watches. I have several watches with Swiss movements, and I like them all. I'll continue to buy plenty of them.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

Will_f said:


> I'm not sure how good a job you're doing in avoiding a debate by participating in one, but ok.
> 
> In this age of wonders we are living in people typically don't pay much premium for innovation, so they don't think they should in watches either, especially if that innovation is equal in performance to tech that's been around for 40 years. I think GS SDs are really cool and I want one, but no way would I pay $35-40k, even if it said PP on the dial.


Oh, you're absolutely correct -- I've done a horrible job of avoiding a debate. It's been a truly pathetic effort on my part.

What's amazing is that I've been dragged into a debate even though I conceded right off the bat that I like BOTH Swiss and Japanese watches, and that I don't think EITHER is better than the other. Even abject equivocation didn't save me.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

you post, you're in, even if you just write "I'm not gonna post . . ." . . . .


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> I'm sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a rip about hacking and cares that my $200 watch loses an extra second per day -- or less -- versus my $500 watch. If I cared about sterling accuracy in my entry level watch, I'd buy another quartz -- and not for $800, by the way.


you ask for things that demonstrate how an ETA is typically better than a 7s26 then you go ahead and ignore those points, even when they are the very things that watch-makers judge a watch movement on?

your watch pricing is also a little off.

the cheapest GS automatic retails at £3300ish for the 37mm and £200 more for the 39mm model
Omega Aqua Terra comes in at £3400ish
Omega Planet Ocean comes in at £3800ish
Rolex Explorer is (the last time I checked) £4250
Zenith Heritage models start at £3400
Zenith Captains at £3700

I'm not seeing massive differences in prices there with the sole exception of Rolex.
That also doesn't take into account that the rest of the GS range sits around £4000.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

drhr said:


> you post, you're in, even if you just write "I'm not gonna post . . ." . . . .


I am literally afraid to post in such threads, but I will most probably overcome my fear...


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

I keep hearing that Seiko offers a great "bang for the buck" in every category..... but when did we ever wanted a good bang for the buck? Who asked for a great bang for the buck? Who asked for the cheapest way to tell time? 

I don't want the best bang for the buck. I want a watch that will make me happy every time I put it on. If that happens to be the cheaper alternative, then great. If not, I will pay the premium to get my fix. Otherwise, what's the point. I might as well just use my iPhone to tell time.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> you ask for things that demonstrate how an ETA is typically better than a 7s26 then you go ahead and ignore those points, even when they are the very things that watch-makers judge a watch movement on?
> 
> your watch pricing is also a little off.
> 
> ...


First off, watchmakers judge a movement based on whether it hacks or hand winds? Since when? Second, you want a Japanese watch that hacks and hand winds? Fine, buy something with a 6R15 in it -- which is comparably priced to a 2824-2, which I mentioned, and which you conveniently ignore my mentioning. I understand that hacking and hand winding are important to a lot of WIS, and that's fine. That doesn't mean they have to be important to me. Third, I'm a consumer, not a watchmaker. That means I evaluate a watch as a consumer. My two most important criteria in evaluating a watch as a consumer are how it looks and whether I can trust it to work. After those criteria, I can start looking at other things. With the GS, the movement is so unique that it became as important to me as the first two criteria.

I can pick up a new Grand Seiko for between $4,000 and $5,000. I haven't priced those other watches because I have no interest in buying them. They're fine watches, but they just don't do it for me.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> First off, watchmakers judge a movement based on whether it hacks or hand winds? Since when? Second, you want a Japanese watch that hacks and hand winds? Fine, buy something with a 6R15 in it -- which is comparably priced to a 2824-2, which I mentioned, and which you conveniently ignore my mentioning. I understand that hacking and hand winding are important to a lot of WIS, and that's fine. That doesn't mean they have to be important to me. Third, I'm a consumer, not a watchmaker. That means I evaluate a watch as a consumer. My two most important criteria in evaluating a watch as a consumer are how it looks and whether I can trust it to work. After those criteria, I can start looking at other things.
> 
> I can pick up a new Grand Seiko for between $4,000 and $5,000. I haven't priced those other watches because I have no interest in buying them.


this is what you were responding to in the post that I quoted:



mleok said:


> *Isochronism, higher beat rate, and lower positional variance*, tends to favor standard grade ETA 2824-2 movements. The main advantage of the 6R15(C) is the slightly increased power reserve, and the increased robustness to neglect, possibly due to the lower beat rate, and the elegant Magic lever winding mechanism..


in bold are the things you chose to deem unimportant as to whether a watch movement is good or not.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

lmcgbaj said:


> I keep hearing that Seiko offers a great "bang for the buck" in every category..... but when did we ever wanted a good bang for the buck? Who asked for a great bang for the buck? Who asked for the cheapest way to tell time?
> 
> I don't want the best bang for the buck. I want a watch that will make me happy every time I put it on. If that happens to be the cheaper alternative, then great. If not, I will pay the premium to get my fix. Otherwise, what's the point. I might as well just use my iPhone to tell time.


That's a valid point. I use the phrase "bang for the buck" for watches only in a relative sense. In a purse sense, watches provide terrible value. Hell, a $10 Casio can do its primary job -- telling time -- better than a $750,000 Patek. But, of course, all of us watch enthusiasts don't care about that. We're willing to pay a good amount of money for watches that appeal to us.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Beefalope said:


> I'm sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a rip about hacking and cares that my $200 watch loses an extra second per day -- or less -- versus my $500 watch. If I cared about sterling accuracy in my entry level watch, I'd buy another quartz -- and not for $800, by the way.
> 
> Instead of pointing out the existence of HEQs for $2,000 or more, how about finding a new Swiss automatic that sells for under $350? Good luck with that, by the way. I know I can find plenty of solid Seikos and Orients under that price range. After you're done looking, come back and talk to me -- with a straight face -- about how Japanese watches are not a good value compared to their Swiss counterparts.


This is not how one engages in a civilized discussion. You are adding a substantial amount of vitriol to this thread.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

mleok said:


> This is not how one engages in a civilized discussion. You are adding a substantial amount of vitriol to this thread.


I think that perhaps your standards for what constitutes vitriol are rather low. There may have been sarcasm in my reply -- sarcasm, by the way, in response to someone using the disrespectful term "ridiculous" to describe my post; you seem to ignore that part and only focus on me while picking sides -- but no vitriol, and certainly not a "substantial" amount.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> this is what you were responding to in the post that I quoted:
> 
> in bold are the things you chose to deem unimportant as to whether a watch movement is good or not.


Ok, fair enough. Let's discuss your points-- but let's do it with the 2824-2 and the 6r15, rather than the 7s26. Remember, I just used the example of the 7s26 to illustrate the point that the Japanese are capable of making a very reliable automatic movement at a relatively low price, which is something the Swiss haven't shown an interest in doing. But the 2824-2 and the 6r15 are a much more equal comparison.

Isochronism and positional variance primarily are going to affect a watch's accuracy, and I know that these two things have been criticized by some in Seikos. Yes, the 2824-2 is better than the 6r15 in those regards. But, as a consumer, I ask myself whether I really care that much. I'm not an accuracy freak when it comes to automatic watches; it's simply not what I value. Whether a watch gains/loses four seconds a day or eight seconds a day or 10 seconds a day doesn't really matter much to me. Even if it were to lose a minute a day, I wouldn't really care much. Now, if we get into several minutes a day, that's an entirely different story, but it's simply not that important for most of us to have a supremely accurate watch. I'm not going to be timing 100-yard dashes anytime soon using my automatic watch. I know the ETA also has the higher beat rate -- 28.8 vs 21.6 -- but so what? Some of the world's finest watches have beat rates of 21.6, and some are at 28.8. There is no correlation between the quality of a watch and whether its beat rate is 28.8 or 21.6.

So what does matter?

For me, it's reliability. That's where Seiko shines. The lower beat rate actually leads to a watch that will need less-frequent servicing. Seiko's general design approach with its 6r15 offering places an emphasis on function, and that makes sense. Seiko could have placed its emphasis on the things that you mentioned before that you like, but it has a different design philosophy with the 6r15. What difference do isochronism or positional variance or high beat rate make if your watch doesn't work? You may have a 6r15 movement for 15 or 20 years that doesn't need servicing. That's not as likely with an ETA. Less servicing means that money is saved, by the way. That's another area where the Japanese watches offer value.

I won't touch the issue of the winding mechanism, since I'm guessing you'll agree with me that the smoothness of the 6r15 is superior to the ETA.

So what's happened here? Your value is in isochronism, positional variance and beat rate. That's fine. But why are those things more important than where I place my value -- namely, reliability? After the appearance of watch, which will always be the most important thing for me, I want a watch that will work and that I don't have to worry about messing with. I think ETA is very, very good in that regard, but I also think Seiko is better. I'm perfectly fine sacrificing a few seconds of accuracy per day for many years of not having to service my watch.


----------



## Jazzmaster (Apr 23, 2011)

And now, your daily moment of Zen...


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

Jazzmaster said:


> And now, your daily moment of Zen...


Yes.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> I can pick up a new Grand Seiko for between $4,000 and $5,000. I haven't priced those other watches because I have no interest in buying them. They're fine watches, but they just don't do it for me.


They are all (IMHO) the target competition Seiko is going up against and pretty close in pricing. They are all excellent watches with excellent movements and finished at a high level. Are they better or worse than Grand Seiko? Depends on your tastes, but in my opinion they're pretty comparable. I saw Omega's new fully antimagnetic coaxial movement AT listing for $6200. It's a pretty impressive watch and to my tastes comparable if not better than the high beat GSs. I would probably choose it over the GS if I were looking to spend around that amount. However, I think I'll by a snowflake SD before either.

My point? GS makes great watches, but it's silly to think they are ridiculously under priced and beat the competition in all ways.


----------



## Nikoloz (Sep 11, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> You may have a 6r15 movement for 15 or 20 years that doesn't need servicing. That's not as likely with an ETA. Less servicing means that money is saved, by the way. That's another area where the Japanese watches offer value.


your claims that _some_ seiko watches needs servicing every 15-20 years are based on what?

1. have you had one for years, do you know anyone that did so, etc?
2. have you actually serviced your seiko (cheap line) and how much it turned out to be? (i've read horror stories about servicing GS, and even worst with SD, in terms of price) 
3. have you tested eta (2824) that it is not as robust as seiko 6r15, in terms of durability and lifespan, and that eta won't run as long as seiko (any reasonable run, being 20 min slow-fast doesn't counts)? the movement will be thrashed, but the same principle of tear and wear will apply to both movements, i know 6r15 has less parts in it, but it still requires maintenance and oiling

some of the most robust watches (mechanicals) has 2824, as their base movement. 
it's rugged and tested over the years, and it's proven it's reliability to consumers, as well as watch companies, who choose them as their primary choice for the 'heart of the watch' selection.

the logic behind seiko durability is that you don't really service a movement, once it's broken, you just throw them away, whereas in case of eta you need to go through 'expensive' service to maintain it's lifespan....or not


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

Unless someone wants to do an exhaustive breakdown of the price of each Seiko model versus the competition I don't think these discussions have much merit. The watch buyer finds a few models he likes then he compares value. He doesn't compare the value of a brand versus another brand, at least not reasonably so. This is especially true with the most vast of all brands, Seiko. It might be easier to do with a company with a much more narrow market focus, but how do we determine the overall value proposition of a brand that makes everything from a Seiko 5 to a Credor Sonnerie?

And, at any rate, since when did being a member of the "elite" club of watch companies have anything to do with providing the best value?

In my opinion and experience, Grand Seiko specifically, provides an extremely high degree of accuracy and finish for a relatively low price point. You can't extrapolate from that to talk about SARBs or Anantas or Credors, but just in general, what I see from GS impresses me more than what I see in most similarly priced watches, even ones I own. That _seems _to be the prevailing opinion of most people that handle them although it is not universal.

It doesn't really bother me one way or the other. We're not paid to be watch evangelists. If you don't like GS that's great. Keep the demand and therefore prices low so I can get another one for less.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzmaster said:


> And now, your daily moment of Zen...


Dear lord that's a beaut!

Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Mike_Dowling said:


> That's a good point, Seiko fan boys (and I'm a Seiko fan) can be just as guilty of xenophobia when it comes to watches. Some legitimately think their 100 buck Seiko 5 is as good as a 1K+ Swiss auto and it's simply not. They completely dismiss any possibility that centuries of watch making have made the Swiss pretty good at it.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


I never said a Seiko 5 is better than 1k watches. After all, only higher end Seiko 5's have aditional features like hacking and hand winding, the rest are plain simple automatics.

Only thing that i did say was this:


> So Seiko didn't just fall from the sky and started making time measuring devices, but Seiko did make several historical milestones, one of which is the first quartz watch. Sure Swiss were also developing it but Seiko did it first. And Seiko was also the first to make affordable mechanical watches . And they started that story 50 years ago with Seiko 5, something Swiss only managed to make now in 2013 with Sistem51 (which is still nowhere to be actually seen)...


I don't get it how some just keep on hammering the hatred against my Japanese watches enthusiasm. I was comparing apples with apples here. Exactly the same price range. Except that Seiko 5 line started 50 years ago where Swiss only decided to go that path now. Showing that people at Seiko were thinking quite ahead of time in a way. Probably mostly because of the introduction of quartz, so they had to push mechanical watches in other direction. One were GrandSeiko, supreme line and Seiko 5, the budget line. Both versions still exist.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

@Beefalope.

So basically, all that was to say that you deem reliability to be more important than outright time-keeping performance.
Sure, that is a fair response, a long as you_* are*_ recognising that you are ignoring what the watch-making industry deems to be important features of a movement.

Where is your basis for stating that a 2824 isn't as robust as a 6R15?
You allude to a 2824 movements not being to last 15-20 years without service (which is a fallacy) but do not provide evidence.
(I have a 2826 that hasn't seen service since the 1980s by the way and I would hazard to guess that mine isn't the only one)
Reliability and longevity without service isn't unique to Seiko movements but you seem to want to suggest that it is.

On the one hand, you claim that time-keeping isn't an important factor to you but then you suggest that how smooth the winding is. Well, the smoothness of the winding has no correlation to either time-keeping or reliability so why is that suddenly a favourable trait? Incidentally, the magic lever winding, while efficient, isn't one that isn't a stranger to torque sensitivity and premature wear (probably a result of that torque sensitivity) i.e has questions to its long term reliability.

The time-keeping of a movement is a function of the quality of a movement's design and a measure of the quality of the work gone into the manufacture and assembly of it.

Another anecdote.
I have my dad's old Omega that dates from the late 1970s to early 80s that has never seen service.
it still runs when I pick it up and it still keeps time to about a minute a day if I keep it at full wind.

But this is where I bow out.
You are willing to ignore factors that most watch fans would rate as being important (i.e time-keeping) in order to establish that one movement is better than the other, even though there is no evidence that the other is any less reliable.
Continue as you please.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> You are willing to ignore factors that most watch fans would rate as being important (i.e time-keeping) in order to establish that one movement is better than the other, even though there is no evidence that the other is any less reliable.


Do you have any reliable statistical data about the accuracy of the 6R15 and ETA 2824? Not factory approved tolerances or COSC certificates, but actual data, as measured on the "real world" watches? Because I would really like to see them.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Do you have any reliable statistical data about the accuracy of the 6R15 and ETA 2824? Not factory approved tolerances or COSC certificates, but actual data, as measured on the "real world" watches? Because I would really like to see them.


Statistical data?
I suppose you are inferring that ETA lie about their movements' specs.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

      Just for example - not exactly COSC, but IMHO pretty good for a lowly Sea-Gull ST16 in a $150 watch. Unadjusted, unregulated, out of the box. Measured on a Timegrapher 1900.



sec/day
Amp.

B.E.
dial up7,52780,2 ms
dial down32750
crown up7,62510crown down-6,22510,3 ms
crown left6,22670,3 ms
crown right-72740


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

Nonsense. Whoever goes after timekeeping alone doesn't buy mechanical watches but goes after HAQ grade watches...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Statistical data?
> I suppose you are inferring that ETA lie about their movements' specs.


Have you ever heard of independant testing - for example fuel consumption or safety in cars? Why would anyone bother to do that if you have factory datasheets?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> Nonsense. Whoever goes after timekeeping alone doesn't buy mechanical watches but goes after HAQ grade watches...


read properly:
I said the time-keeping is a reflection of the quality of the movement.

* * *
and what does one example of a Sea Gull movement have to do with Seiko movements and what we were talking about?
You forget, as far as he is concerned, time-keeping doesn't matter.

If it makes a difference, I don't recall the numbers but I have a vague memory of my TAGHeuer being on a timegrapher at SalonQP and it was 0 dial up and none of the other positions were more than 6 secs off with most of them being at 4 (I can't remember the range - too busy drinking and talking to people). Amplitude was all greater than 330. That incidentally, also has nothing to do the accuracy vs reliability discussion.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> If it makes a difference, I don't recall the numbers but I have a vague memory of my TAGHeuer being on a timegrapher at SalonQP and it was 0 dial up and none of the other positions were more than 6 secs off with most of them being at 4


In other words, you have a marginally more accurate watch for 10x price. That's exactly what we are talking about (when we are discussing accuracy vs. price).


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> In other words, you have a marginally more accurate watch for 10x price. That's exactly what we are talking about (when we are discussing accuracy vs. price).


Not quite.
Chronograph.
If I recall, mechanical Seiko Chronographs aren't exactly budget items. And when was this about accuracy vs price?
Again because you seem to have missed it as well; I was talking about accuracy because it is a measure of the quality of the movement; something that guy was saying isn't important.

Stop trying to have an argument with me about something that I wasn't even talking about.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Beefalope said:


> I want to avoid the debate of whether a Grand Seiko is better than JLC, Girard Perregaux or the "Big Three." I just don't see the usefulness of that debate. I'd rather evaluate every watch on its own merits.
> 
> 1. I've held a Grand Seiko on two occasions,
> 
> ...


You made it all of a few hundred words before you got sucked into the debate between the GS and big three...

I do agree that the word Seiko in the name has a lot to do with its initial perception.

As for paying $40,000 for a GS if it was built by the big three, that's quite a bit of hyperbole. A Geneva seal would certainly be worth something on a GS but not remotely the premium you suggest.

In the end the GS are great watches but for me they have almost zero allure. I find them boring, and find the PP Calatrava boring as well, much preferring the Aquanaut and Nautilus.

As far as the SD movement goes it is interesting to me in a similar way that HAQ watches are, I appreciate the tech but it still uses electricity to function. It therefore doesn't have that allure for me.

It just hit me that I wouldn't trade my Aquanaut for 10 GSs if I had to keep them. (not be able to sell them and use the money to buy other things) I certainly don't think it is 10 times better than a GS but visually it is immeasurably better, to me. There are people that "get" the GS and people that don't but just because you "get" them doesn't mean they you will want them. I get the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry and would recommend either to anyone considering a mid-sized 4 door family car, but it doesn't mean I have any interest in owning one myself.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I was talking about accuracy because it is a measure of the quality of the movement; something that guy was saying isn't important.


Yes, and I'm trying to tell you that, first of all, we don't know exactly how accurate are those movements (or what is the difference in accuracy between them), because we don't have enough reliable statistical data, and secondly, based on anecdotal data (like those of my Sea-Gull posted above and your TAG) the differences between decent contemporary movements are most probably quite small, perhaps even within statistical error.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> @Beefalope.
> 
> So basically, all that was to say that you deem reliability to be more important than outright time-keeping performance.
> Sure, that is a fair response, a long as you_* are*_ recognising that you are ignoring what the watch-making industry deems to be important features of a movement.
> ...


How about you relax for a second and try to follow the argument instead of jumping to conclusions. And how about you try to have a sensible discussion instead of saying, "This is where I bow out" - in effect, this is where I take my ball and go home.

1. Given that statistical reliability measurements for ETA vs. Seiko are not exactly readily available, I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to provide you with. I'm not going to commission a study. Most of this kind of thing is generally going to be anecdotal, which is what you relied on, by the way, in comparing an Omega to a BASIC Seiko (!!). However, if you don't realize that watches, IN GENERAL, with higher beat rates are more accurate but have shorter service intervals than watches with lower beat rates and less accuracy but longer service intervals, I'm not really sure what to tell you.

2. As I said before, the 2824-2 and 6r15 have different points of emphasis (accuracy emphasized vs. reliability emphasized, though both are accurate and reliable in a purse sense). You want a Seiko movement that's as accurate as 2824-2? The 6r20.

3. I don't care about timekeeping? Um...not quite. I don't care about highly precise timekeeping in entry-level automatic movements. I couldn't care less about a slight difference in a few seconds a day in an ETA or Seiko movement. What are those few seconds going to do for me, except allow me to engage in WUS debates about whether my watch is +/- 10 seconds a day or +/- 12 seconds a day. Instead, I'd rather enjoy my entry level Hamilton Khaki or my Seiko Alpinist without caring whether one is a few seconds faster or slower than the other. Let me make an analogy to cars, since watches and cars are my two favorite engineered items and analogies often work with them. If I owned a Toyota Camry, would I care about its 0-60 times or its top speed? No, I would just want it to work.

4. In a high-end watch movement, precision becomes more important -- just as I would care about the 0-60 times and top speed of, say, a Nissan GTR or BMW M3. And this is where you will lose the argument every single time. Let's take a look at the COSC standards to illustrate just how exquisite Seiko is when it comes to timekeeping in its higher-end offerings - and, in fact, how much better it is than the Swiss. Before COSC was formed in 1973, there was Observatory Chronometer, which was tougher than today's COSC and harder to pass. For example, average daily deviation for OC was within +/- 0.75 seconds; the COSC requirement is -4/+6 seconds. Thermal variation must be within +/- 0.20 seconds per day; COSC requirement is +/- 0.60 seconds. The OC test was 45 days; the COSC is 15 days. The OC standards were so tough that watchmakers produced special watches for the sole, specific purpose of passing the OC standards. Two -- and only two -- watchmakers did not provide special watches to pass OC standards and instead just used their regular watches that anyone could buy. One was the GP Waltham pocket watch. You know what the other one was? Seiko, with its 4520 and 4580 movements in watches that were actually sold to the public. Seiko wiped the floor with the best-of-the-best Swiss watchmakers -- and they did so using just one of their regular movements against the specialized movements of the Swiss, who were competing with watches that the public would never get a chance to buy. So what do the Swiss do? Well, they follow the dictum that if you're losing the game, you change the rules. They drop the standards to create COSC, which gives them a marketing tool. And they say that only Swiss watches are eligible for COSC, saving them further embarrassment and continued beatings from Seiko. Nowadays, Grand Seiko standards are actually TOUGHER than COSC standards. The Grand Seiko can pass any COSC standards; the same is not true of elite Swiss watchmakers being able to pass GS standards.

5. Lastly, don't confuse "watch fans" with WIS. Most watch fans couldn't possibly care less about what we're discussing here. Most watch fans -- not watch nerds like you and I -- care about two things and two things only. A. How does my watch look? B. Does it work? I'm much more of a watch fan than a watch nerd, although clearly I've indicated that I'm a lot more of the latter than I would care to admit.


----------



## Mark355 (Dec 25, 2012)

Haven't been on watchuseek very long but the trend seems to be that there's little to be gained by reading opinion threads beyond page 3.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> You made it all of a few hundred words before you got sucked into the debate between the GS and big three...
> 
> I do agree that the word Seiko in the name has a lot to do with its initial perception.
> 
> ...


Oh, man, you're absolutely right. I should have had my head examined before posting -- and I actually thought my post was innocuous. I didn't even try to frame it as Japanese vs. Swiss, particularly since I'm a fan of both.

I think you're right that my contention that a GS would cost seven or eight times more is a bit much. I should have used lower numbers. That being said, I do think that if the Swiss came out with a hi-beat watch with the superb finishing and accuracy of the GS, they would charge more for it than a GS. They'd start marketing it as the World's Most Accurate Mechanical Watch and blah, blah, blah, then get the Swiss thing going, and then separate us from our money.

I understand why you might want to avoid the SD, since a lot of people are purists about keeping their watches non-electric. I get that. For me, the fact that the SD blends old and new technology actually makes it more appealing. Remember, too, that the GS comes in both SD forms and standard hi-beat. I still haven't decided which one I'll go with when I finally pull the trigger on a GS.

Frankly, I'm worn out by all this. It reminds me of the inane iPhone vs. Android arguments that I never engaged in and always thought were childish. I'm going to go play with my kids.

Have a good one.


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

Mark355 said:


> Haven't been on watchuseek very long but the trend seems to be that there's little to be gained by reading opinion threads beyond page 3.


Depends. In a binary arguement based on preference (and therefore no way to declare a winner) arguably there is little to be gained from reading the thread at all.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

geoffbot said:


> Depends. In a binary arguement based on preference (and therefore no way to declare a winner) arguably there is little to be gained from reading the thread at all.


Arigato! Almost makes me want to chuck the watches, abandon the passion and move on . . .


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Mark355 said:


> Haven't been on watchuseek very long but the trend seems to be that there's little to be gained by reading opinion threads beyond page 3.


From a knowledge perspective, you're probably right unless you want to learn something about debate. You can learn a lot about how to lose an argument (or win) irrespective of facts.


----------



## Mark355 (Dec 25, 2012)

geoffbot said:


> Depends. In a binary arguement based on preference (and therefore no way to declare a winner) arguably there is little to be gained from reading the thread at all.


I wouldn't say that. There's usually sound comparisons with pictures in the beginning. : )


----------



## RejZoR (May 12, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> You made it all of a few hundred words before you got sucked into the debate between the GS and big three...
> 
> I do agree that the word Seiko in the name has a lot to do with its initial perception.
> 
> As for paying $40,000 for a GS if it was built by the big three, that's quite a bit of hyperbole. A Geneva seal would certainly be worth something on a GS but not remotely the premium you suggest.


I'll never understand the people who bable about this nonsense. Only thing that Seiko doesn't have common with other watchmakers is that it's not located in Switzerland. Everything else is exactly the same. They have their design studios, exactly the same long history, inhouse movements, they invented and patented loads of incredible stuff. Yet you toss it in some 3rd tier bin. Why!? Just because it's not "Swiss Made" ? So, if you'd smack a "Rolex" badge on a exactly the same GrandSeiko as it is now, it would instantly be a success. But because it's "just a Seiko" it's worth nothing. This is the biggest load of nonsense i've ever heard and a reason why i respect even more.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drhr said:


> Arigato! Almost makes me want to chuck the watches, abandon the passion and move on . . .


Dibs on your collection! :-d


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

mleok said:


> Dibs on your collection! :-d


Me too, me too.. Second dibs.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

RejZoR said:


> I'll never understand the people who bable about this nonsense. Only thing that Seiko doesn't have common with other watchmakers is that it's not located in Switzerland. Everything else is exactly the same. They have their design studios, exactly the same long history, inhouse movements, they invented and patented loads of incredible stuff. Yet you toss it in some 3rd tier bin. Why!? Just because it's not "Swiss Made" ? So, if you'd smack a "Rolex" badge on a exactly the same GrandSeiko as it is now, it would instantly be a success. But because it's "just a Seiko" it's worth nothing. This is the biggest load of nonsense i've ever heard and a reason why i respect even more.


On this thread, we are comparing a Grand Seiko to the Big Three, which traditionally refers to Vacheron Constantin, Patek Philippe, and Audemars Piguet. Even for Swiss watch enthusiasts, there is a substantial perception gap between a Rolex and a Vacheron, Patek, or Audemars, so I don't think it quite as simple a matter as Grand Seiko not being Swiss.

I think in terms of their designs, Grand Seiko does compete in the Rolex segment, in the sense that they produce excellent watches with relatively conservative designs. In contrast, the dressy high-end sports watches like the VC Overseas, Patek Nautilus, and AP Royal Oak have much more distinctive designs. Put another way, while they have sublime aspects to their finishing and design that can only be truly appreciated in the metal, they are also much less understated than the typical Grand Seiko or the Rolex Explorer I.


----------



## Ottovonn (Dec 9, 2011)

lmcgbaj said:


> Me too, me too.. Second dibs.


Third dibs -- sort of.

I just want the Nomos. :<

LOL


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

:-d. . . will keep that in mind Imcgbaj & mleok since I know the watches would be appreciated for what they are and well cared 4 . . .


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

RejZoR said:


> I'll never understand the people who bable about this nonsense. Only thing that Seiko doesn't have common with other watchmakers is that it's not located in Switzerland. Everything else is exactly the same. They have their design studios, exactly the same long history, inhouse movements, they invented and patented loads of incredible stuff. Yet you toss it in some 3rd tier bin. Why!? Just because it's not "Swiss Made" ? So, if you'd smack a "Rolex" badge on a exactly the same GrandSeiko as it is now, it would instantly be a success. But because it's "just a Seiko" it's worth nothing. This is the biggest load of nonsense i've ever heard and a reason why i respect even more.


In this gentleman's defense, I don't think he was really saying that HE thinks Seiko isn't worthy of our respect; I think he's saying that public's perception of Seiko is not as a high-quality watchmaker. That's accurate, as the public doesn't really give Seiko the just due it deserves as an excellent producer of watches. Here on WUS, the vast majority of us respect Seiko and acknowledge as a very valuable watch producer with skilled watchmakers.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

mleok said:


> On this thread, we are comparing a Grand Seiko to the Big Three, which traditionally refers to Vacheron Constantin, Patek Philippe, and Audemars Piguet. Even for Swiss watch enthusiasts, there is a substantial perception gap between a Rolex and a Vacheron, Patek, or Audemars, so I don't think it quite as simple a matter as Grand Seiko not being Swiss.
> 
> I think in terms of their designs, Grand Seiko does compete in the Rolex segment, in the sense that they produce excellent watches with relatively conservative designs. In contrast, the dressy high-end sports watches like the VC Overseas, Patek Nautilus, and AP Royal Oak have much more distinctive designs. Put another way, while they have sublime aspects to their finishing and design that can only be truly appreciated in the metal, they are also much less understated than the typical Grand Seiko or the Rolex Explorer I.


I'm curious as to whether anyone on here has ever seen a high-end Credor in person or held one. I never have, so I'd be interested among those who have in your perceptions of watches like that compared to the elite Swiss designs.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Beefalope said:


> In this gentleman's defense, I don't think he was really saying that HE thinks Seiko isn't worthy of our respect; I think he's saying that public's perception of Seiko is not as a high-quality watchmaker. That's accurate, as the public doesn't really give Seiko the just due it deserves as an excellent producer of watches. Here on WUS, the vast majority of us respect Seiko and acknowledge as a very valuable watch producer with skilled watchmakers.


Well, in fairness, you could slap a Rolex name on any number of Swiss watches and dramatically increase the sales of the watch. But it does reflect the fact that brand equity is an important aspect of the luxury watch industry, and Grand Seiko's challenge outside Japan is indeed the fact that Seiko is associated with both exceptional timepieces from Grand Seiko, and the uninspired quartz Seikos one finds in the mall.

If the Swatch group was to put a Swatch label on their Breguets, Blancpains, and Glashutte Originals, they would have the same problems that Grand Seiko faces, so I hardly think this is an issue of Swiss vs. non-Swiss either.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> In this gentleman's defense, I don't think he was really saying that HE thinks Seiko isn't worthy of our respect; I think he's saying that public's perception of Seiko is not as a high-quality watchmaker. That's accurate, as the *public doesn't really give Seiko the just due it deserves as an excellent producer of watches*. Here on WUS, the vast majority of us respect Seiko and acknowledge as a very valuable watch producer with skilled watchmakers.


not just accurate, but logical and true. why would the public give something they are not intimately interested in their just due?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Beefalope said:


> I'm curious as to whether anyone on here has ever seen a high-end Credor in person or held one. I never have, so I'd be interested among those who have in your perceptions of watches like that compared to the elite Swiss designs.


I have not held one in person, but the Credor Eichi certainly looks like something that would give the Big Three a run for their money. But it is also $37.5K, compared to $26K for a Patek 5116 (with the enamel dial).

But, in fairness, a more apt comparison to the Credor Eichi would be a bespoke watch like the Philippe Dufour Simplicity ($60K).


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, and I'm trying to tell you that, first of all, we don't know exactly how accurate are those movements (or what is the difference in accuracy between them), because we don't have enough reliable statistical data, and secondly, based on anecdotal data (like those of my Sea-Gull posted above and your TAG) the differences between decent contemporary movements are most probably quite small, perhaps even within statistical error.


I would love to see the wus community purchase, say, 100 new standard or elabore (whichever is deemed most appropriate) eta 2824 movements and 100 6r15s and send them to an independent watchmaker for testing. Now 100 wouldn't prove conclusive, but based on my personal experience of a dozen or so 2824s and 1 6r15 (which was the least accurate out of the 13), I think at least for me my suspicions that the 2824 is a significantly more accurate movement out of the box would be confirmed. And yes, I'm willing to put some $ down for the experiment, so long as the losing side ends up reimbursing the winning side for cost.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm still waiting to find out which Grand Seikos use a 6R15 or 7S26 since that's all anyone's talking about. The argument must be that the 6R15 is inferior to the 2824 (this isn't at all obvious if true), and since the Seiko 6R15 is Japanese and the ETA 2824 is Swiss, we can extrapolate that Grand Seiko, which is also Japanese, is inferior to any given Swiss movement and therefore brand.


----------



## Fi33pop (Aug 5, 2013)

mleok said:


> Well, in fairness, you could slap a Rolex name on any number of Swiss watches and dramatically increase the sales of the watch. But it does reflect the fact that brand equity is an important aspect of the luxury watch industry, and Grand Seiko's challenge outside Japan is indeed the fact that Seiko is associated with both exceptional timepieces from Grand Seiko, and the uninspired quartz Seikos one finds in the mall.
> 
> If the Swatch group was to put a Swatch label on their Breguets, Blancpains, and Glashutte Originals, they would have the same problems that Grand Seiko faces, so I hardly think this is an issue of Swiss vs. non-Swiss either.


I think illitig8 said it best many posts ago - that it is fortunate for the image of Lexus that they didn't call it Grand Toyota. Or something to that effect.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Beefalope said:


> 4. In a high-end watch movement, precision becomes more important -- just as I would care about the 0-60 times and top speed of, say, a Nissan GTR or BMW M3. .


Not sure I really think the 0-60 time analogy works here. In any event I mainly wanted to point out that anyone who really understands the purpose of a M3 or GTR would have 0-60 pretty fair down on their priority list of performance metrics and unless the Nordschleife was their trackday circuit of choice top speed would be pretty low also.

I the end would GS be a more respected brand if it was Swiss, most probably yes, BUT Seiko could close the gap if they bothered to market the sub-brand correctly in the US. The average person in the US and I suppose much of the world wouldn't even think to mention GS and Rolex in the same breath much like the average person has no idea Lexus has built a sports car to compete with the best of Germany and Italy and Toyota is pretty good at marketing...


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

@beefalope

because you obviously want a reply

(please excuse the bullet point format because I am typing on a phone)

All I have been trying to say, is that your dismissal of the time-keeping aspect of a watch/movement in a particular price range as being unimportant is wrong because time-keeping is a function of a well manufactured and assembled movement. This isn't about the accuracy but what that accuracy represents.

In lieu of comprehensive statistical data, what else can we use apart from manufacturers data?

My point isn't even to do with ETA/Swiss vs Seiko/Japanese; they just happen to be the two that you two (mleok and yourself) were talking about.

Not clear enough?
How about we take two 2824 movements; a standard grade one and a top grade one.
Which one is the better movement?
Ignoring the different materials used, the better movement is the one that has been adjusted to be a better time-keeper.
In a slightly different scenario, take two of the same grade 2824 movement ebauches and give it to two different watchmakers and give each of them different specifications to adjust to. How do you judge the better movement?

That was my point regarding time-keeping as a measure of a movement.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

mleok said:


> Well, in fairness, you could slap a Rolex name on any number of Swiss watches and dramatically increase the sales of the watch. But it does reflect the fact that brand equity is an important aspect of the luxury watch industry, and Grand Seiko's challenge outside Japan is indeed the fact that Seiko is associated with both exceptional timepieces from Grand Seiko, and the uninspired quartz Seikos one finds in the mall.
> 
> If the Swatch group was to put a Swatch label on their Breguets, Blancpains, and Glashutte Originals, they would have the same problems that Grand Seiko faces, so I hardly think this is an issue of Swiss vs. non-Swiss either.


That's a fair point.

The Swatch Group has done a very good job of branding its watches, and they cover all bases, from the affordable (Tissot, Hamilton, Mido, etc.) to the entry level high range (Longines, Rado) to the high range (Omega) to the elite (Breguet, Harry Winston). Separate watches in their line are meant to appeal to different consumers. It's the same thing that Toyota and Nissan have done with Lexus and Infiniti, and the same thing that countless other companies have done in the past few decades.

For some reason, Seiko has taken a different approach. They've done some of what the Swatch Group has done (Pulsar vs. Credor, for example), but not nearly as much. I can't really question the wisdom of Seiko's approach, since they have sold a ton of watches and obviously have been very successful.

Both approaches clearly are working, as the Swatch Group pumped life into the Swiss watchmaking industry after the quartz crisis, and Seiko is a massive conglomerate of all kinds of companies -- not just watches.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

This all comes back to people enjoying watches at certain prices and wondering if more expensive watches are worth the outlay given all the satisfaction they get out of xyz watch. I've been wearing a $35 Timex all weekend and enjoyed it nearly as much as I would am skx007, which in turn I would enjoy nearly as much as my Airman. There's certainly an element of diminishing returns the higher the price gets, but it doesn't mean my $35 Timex is as nice or complete as an SKX.


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

I read almost all the posts (didn't read the last few pages) and I don't understand why does the price matter? "It's a $500 watch and feels like it". Fine ,that's cool. Why should it feel more expensive? What's the point here? I like the feel of a $500 watch on my wrist as much as a $5000 watch. Geeeeeez |>


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> Not sure I really think the 0-60 time analogy works here. In any event I mainly wanted to point out that anyone who really understands the purpose of a M3 or GTR would have 0-60 pretty fair down on their priority list of performance metrics and unless the Nordschleife was their trackday circuit of choice top speed would be pretty low also.
> 
> I the end would GS be a more respected brand if it was Swiss, most probably yes, BUT Seiko could close the gap if they bothered to market the sub-brand correctly in the US. The average person in the US and I suppose much of the world wouldn't even think to mention GS and Rolex in the same breath much like the average person has no idea Lexus has built a sports car to compete with the best of Germany and Italy and Toyota is pretty good at marketing...


Seiko's approach to selling the GS is interesting. Up until a few years ago, you couldn't even buy a GS outside of Japan, and that's still Seiko's primarily target market when it comes to the GS. In Japan, Seiko has immense respect as a brand, and the GS is revered. I'm sure that if Seiko wanted to, it could have easily renamed and re-branded the GS, marketed the heck out of it and sold a lot of them throughout the world as luxury watches -- and most people wouldn't even know that it was a Seiko. Just like most people don't know that Kirin beer and Nikon cameras are part of the Mitsubishi conglomerate.

But, again, I'm certainly not going to question Seiko's marketing strategies, since obviously Seiko has been immensely successful.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Fi33pop said:


> I think illitig8 said it best many posts ago - that it is fortunate for the image of Lexus that they didn't call it Grand Toyota. Or something to that effect.


That was my point, exact verbiage or not. In deference to Seiko, Toyota, Nissan and Honda had full US housed "companies" who helped balance the Japanese mentality to help ensure its US acceptance. I don't know if Seiko had an initial interest to penetrate the non-Asian market with the GS. A funny kinda WIS footnote with Lexus is that Calibre was one of the short list names along with Alexis from which Lexus was ultimately derived.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

CitizenM said:


> I'm still waiting to find out which Grand Seikos use a 6R15 or 7S26 since that's all anyone's talking about. The argument must be that the 6R15 is inferior to the 2824 (this isn't at all obvious if true), and since the Seiko 6R15 is Japanese and the ETA 2824 is Swiss, we can extrapolate that Grand Seiko, which is also Japanese, is inferior to any given Swiss movement and therefore brand.


Yeah, there has been a ton of talk in this thread about 6r15/7s26 vs. 2824-2 and almost none about relevant movements to the op's question. The conversation should be about the 9s65 or 85 vs. a movement in something in a watch from the big 3. Personally, I think a more relevant comparison would be something like seiko 9s85 vs. Rolex 3133, omega 8500 or jlc 899. This 6r15, 2824 war really has nothing to do with what the op (all of 30 pages ago) was interested in.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> @beefalope
> 
> because you obviously want a reply
> 
> ...


There's absolutely nothing wrong with using time-keeping as the standard for evaluating a movement. That's certainly a fair way to look at a movement, and that seems to be your priority. That's definitely fine.

I'm just saying there could be other priorities, too. I have a great photography book called "Movement" by Guido Mocafico (awesome name!) that I highly recommend to you. It's nothing but photographs of watch movements, so it's perfect for us watch nerds. The movements are absolutely gorgeous, and I could easily spend half a day with that book. I have no idea how well -- or poorly -- any of those movements actually keep time, but that doesn't matter to me. When it comes to those movements, I primarily evaluate them on their beauty. Everything else becomes secondary.

Or how about Russian watches? The consensus on Russian watches seems to be that they're not particularly accurate pieces, but they are exceptionally rugged. I've beaten the hell out of a Vostok that I owned -- almost deliberately trying to get it to stop working -- but I couldn't kill that watch. I gave it to my 10-year-old nephew, and he'll probably treat it worse than I have. It'll probably still tick. So it's clearly not as accurate as a 2824-2. Does that make it worse? I don't think so.

Ultimately, the point I'm making is that there are different ways to evaluate watches. It doesn't necessarily have to come down to precision. The way I look at my basic watches, as long as they can keep time within a few minutes per day, I'm ok with that, since I very rarely where the same watch for two days in a row and, therefore, I won't care much if I lose even a few minutes a day. Now, of course the expectation is different for my higher-end watches. I'm still not obsessed with their accuracy, but it matters more to me than in my cheaper watches. I have different expectations for different watches.

I think you and I simply value different things in a watch. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong; it's just that we have different points of emphasis.

I hope we've reached some kind of common ground here.


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> Not sure I really think the 0-60 time analogy works here. In any event I mainly wanted to point out that anyone who really understands the purpose of a M3 or GTR would have 0-60 pretty fair down on their priority list of performance metrics and unless the Nordschleife was their trackday circuit of choice top speed would be pretty low also.
> 
> I the end would GS be a more respected brand if it was Swiss, most probably yes, BUT Seiko could close the gap if they bothered to market the sub-brand correctly in the US. The average person in the US and I suppose much of the world wouldn't even think to mention GS and Rolex in the same breath much like the average person has no idea Lexus has built a sports car to compete with the best of Germany and Italy and Toyota is pretty good at marketing...


A few years back, my partner had an M3. In terms of the driving experience, it was just an awesome car. The acceleration was amazing, the handling was perfectly smooth, the engine sounded angry and always begged for more, and it was just a hell of a fun driving experience. Unfortunately, we live in Denver, and it snows pretty heavily here, so a rear-wheel drive car -- especially one with such power -- was completely impractical here. But, oh man, what a ride.

As for the GS, it just seems like Seiko's not that interested in selling a lot of them outside of Japan, which would explain why they didn't start offering the GS to the rest of the world until 2010 -- 50 years after the release of the GS. Not sure why that is. Japanese culture is very interesting. When I had the good fortune to travel there several years back, I found the Japanese to be the most pleasant, friendly and accommodating people I had ever met. Just had a great experience there. They do some things very differently than Westerners are used to and maybe part of it is just wanting to keep some of their special things -- like the GS -- primarily for Japan. Not sure; just speculating.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Beefalope said:


> A few years back, my partner had an M3. In terms of the driving experience, it was just an awesome car. The acceleration was amazing, the handling was perfectly smooth, the engine sounded angry and always begged for more, and it was just a hell of a fun driving experience. Unfortunately, we live in Denver, and it snows pretty heavily here, so a rear-wheel drive car -- especially one with such power -- was completely impractical here. But, oh man, what a ride.
> 
> As for the GS, it just seems like Seiko's not that interested in selling a lot of them outside of Japan, which would explain why they didn't start offering the GS to the rest of the world until 2010 -- 50 years after the release of the GS. Not sure why that is. Japanese culture is very interesting. When I had the good fortune to travel there several years back, I found the Japanese to be the most pleasant, friendly and accommodating people I had ever met. Just had a great experience there. *They do some things very differently than Westerners are used to and maybe part of it is just wanting to keep some of their special things -- like the GS -- primarily for Japan*. Not sure; just speculating.


Since we've already veered off subject/target, gotta give this a lotta truth. Was verily impressed with the "no looting mindset" during times of catastrophic weather devastation of land and belongings that the Japanese have gone through a short time ago. As opposed, of course, to the typical experience in the same chaotic circumstances here in the states and, surprisingly so, the Philippines recently. NOT SAYIN' disagree with "desperate times cause desperate actions", but as with all of life, we have choices and those choices define who we are . . .

Also wish GS will be kept primarily Japan so the secret won't be so out in the open . . .


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

omeglycine said:


> I would love to see the wus community purchase, say, 100 new standard or elabore (whichever is deemed most appropriate) eta 2824 movements and 100 6r15s and send them to an independent watchmaker for testing.


Well, that won't happen anytime soon, but for starters kind of "wiki" database could be established, where data provided by the members of the wus community could be collected.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

And just for a quick illustration (and a little fun), 6R15 in my Alpinist ($380, bought in Japan) on a Timegrapher ($305, bought in Germany);-)


----------



## Au Hasard Balthazar (Feb 18, 2013)

CitizenM said:


> I'm still waiting to find out which Grand Seikos use a 6R15 or 7S26 since that's all anyone's talking about. The argument must be that the 6R15 is inferior to the 2824 (this isn't at all obvious if true), and since the Seiko 6R15 is Japanese and the ETA 2824 is Swiss, we can extrapolate that Grand Seiko, which is also Japanese, is inferior to any given Swiss movement and therefore brand.


As this as already veered off topic I do have a question related to Seiko's movments. How do the movements used within the various sub-brands compare in quality? Are the movements (manual, automatic, and Spring Drive) used in the Credor, Grand Seiko, Galante, or Brightz (is this the same as Ananta?) comparable in quality and decoration? Based on their website, GS, Galante, and Credor are all considered as Seiko's top of the line but I was wondering how they differed. If anyone knows I would appreciate it. Also does anyone know if they plan on releasing more JDM GS's (they have a few spring drive models and one high beat model on leather straps that I really like) or any of their Credor/Galante lines to the international market anytime soon?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Well, that won't happen anytime soon, but for starters kind of "wiki" database could be established, where data provided by the members of the wus community could be collected.


I wonder how accurate owner collected data would be. Based on the number of "accuracy" posts I have read over the years in WIS forums I am convinced people "fudge" their accuracy data or I have be unusually unlucky with almost ever one of the 100+ watches I have owned.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> And just for a quick illustration (and a little fun), 6R15 in my Alpinist ($380, bought in Japan) on a Timegrapher ($305, bought in Germany);-)


You have a Timegrapher, so you know as well as I do that the 6R15's rate is quite dependent on the position, and the power reserve. For that matter, the rate fluctuates from instant to instant.

Before winding, the 6R15C in my SARB033 was -11 sec/day crown down, and -1 sec/day dial up.


















After handwinding, it is +8 sec/day dial up.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> I wonder how accurate owner collected data would be. Based on the number of "accuracy" posts I have read over the years in WIS forums I am convinced people "fudge" their accuracy data or I have be unusually unlucky with almost ever one of the 100+ watches I have owned.


Much better than nothing IMHO. A bias would be present for sure, but I don't think that owners of ETAs are less (or more) prone to exaggeration than owners of Seikos or Miyotas or Seagulls ... So at least for comparisons between movements such data would be quite usefull.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Much better than nothing IMHO. A bias would be present for sure, but I don't think that owners of ETAs are less (or more) prone to exaggaration than owners of Seikos or Miyotas or Seagulls ... So at least for comparisons between movements such data would be quite usefull.


That is a good point. I have to assume people who gather and compile data based on humans relaying the data points probably have a term of art for the exaggeration that is common. Medical research that relies on pain levels for example.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> Much better than nothing IMHO. A bias would be present for sure, but I don't think that owners of ETAs are less (or more) prone to exaggaration than owners of Seikos or Miyotas or Seagulls ... So at least for comparisons between movements such data would be quite usefull.


What I think is more common with Seiko owners is that they're more likely to actively compensate for rate drifts by taking advantage of positional variance.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> What I think is more common with Seiko owners is that they're more likely to actively compensate for rate drifts by taking advantage of positional variance.


You may think so, but you have zero data to support that.;-) And it doesn't matter even if they really do so, as far as rates for different positions are reported correctly.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> You may think so, but you have zero data to support that.;-) And it doesn't matter even if they really do so, as far as rates for different positions are reported correctly.


There is certainly a fair bit of anecdotal evidence of this that is self-reported on the forums. In any case, most of the information reported is based on actual wear, as opposed to instantaneous rate measurements on a Timegrapher, so it really depends on the isochronism, wearing habits, and period over which the rate is averaged over.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> You have a Timegrapher, so you know as well as I do that the 6R15's rate is quite dependent on the position, and the power reserve. For that matter, the rate fluctuates from instant to instant.


the amplitude on that looks a bit low.
when's the last time someone had a look at that?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> the amplitude on that looks a bit low.
> when's the last time someone had a look at that?


IMHO it's in fact more or less OK. It should be larger than 246 degrees (as measured by the timegrapher) because the lift angle is not set correctly. AFAIK 6R15 has the lift angle of 53 degrees, not 52, and the amplitude measured by the timegrapher depends on the correctly set lift angle. So I would say it's in fact around 260-270, which should be OK. However the beat error of 1 ms is something that should be corrected.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> the amplitude on that looks a bit low.
> when's the last time someone had a look at that?


I just got it a few days ago. I just wound the watch fully and tested it again dial up, it has an amplitude of 269 degrees and a rate of +12 sec/day. With the increased power reserve, it take more winds that I'm used to to max out the power reserve.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> IMHO it's in fact more or less OK. It should be larger than 246 degrees (as measured by the timegrapher) because the lift angle is not set correctly. AFAIK 6R15 has the lift angle of 53 degrees, not 52, and the amplitude measured by the timegrapher depends on the correctly set lift angle. So I would say it's in fact around 260-270, which should be OK. However the beat error of 1 ms is something that should be corrected.


I wasn't too happy with the beat error of 1 ms when I measured it either.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

I'll admit, I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about Grand Seiko but I had overlooked an older GS model that used the 6R15, discontinued in 2006. It's the rare SBGR15. Not many photos of the movement out there, but I did manage to find this one.









I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't know of this one but here I am, owning up to my mistake. I'm still not sure about a GS with a 7S26 yet but anything is possible having seen this.


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

CitizenM said:


> I'll admit, I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about Grand Seiko but I had overlooked an older GS model that used the 6R15, discontinued in 2006. It's the rare SBGR15. Not many photos of the movement out there, but I did manage to find this one.
> 
> View attachment 1298531
> 
> ...


That is clearly photoshopped.


----------



## Lexus050470 (Sep 10, 2012)

Bomfunk said:


> That is clearly photoshopped.


agreed. 9S54 is printed on the case, right under the crown.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)




----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

It's in response to the discussion above where a bunch of people were trying to judge GS's using the 6r15 caliber. This thread needs more lighthearted humor 



Lexus050470 said:


> agreed. 9S54 is printed on the case, right under the crown.


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

ed21x said:


> It's in response to the discussion above where a bunch of people were trying to judge GS's using the 6r15 caliber. This thread needs more lighthearted humor


Thread tl;dr. I thought CitizenM must be trippin.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Who was using a 6r15 to judge Grand Seiko.
As far as I could tell, they were just talking about a 6R15 and how it could be compared to a 2824 as a side conversation.
You must have missed it but they even clearly stated they were talking about mid range models around the $1500-2000 (for Swiss I believe) mark.

If you could point out where someone was saying the 6R15 is as good as a Grand Seiko or perhaps what JLC, GP or big three uses a 2824, that would be great.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Who was using a 6r15 to judge Grand Seiko.
> As far as I could tell, they were just talking about a 6R15 and how it could be compared to a 2824 as a side conversation.
> You must have missed it but they even clearly stated they were talking about mid range models around the $1500-2000 (for Swiss I believe) mark.
> 
> If you could point out where someone was saying the 6R15 is as good as a Grand Seiko or perhaps what JLC, GP or big three uses a 2824, that would be great.





CitizenM said:


> I'm still waiting to find out which Grand Seikos use a 6R15 or 7S26 since that's all anyone's talking about. The argument must be that the 6R15 is inferior to the 2824 (this isn't at all obvious if true), and since the Seiko 6R15 is Japanese and the ETA 2824 is Swiss, we can extrapolate that Grand Seiko, which is also Japanese, is inferior to any given Swiss movement and therefore brand.


CitizenM's post above illustrates the flawed connection people are trying to make.

You may claim that it is just a side conversation, but the fact that a 6r15 vs 2824 debate is occurring in the middle of a GS vs AP/PP thread is meant to imply many unnecessary parallels and generalities.

The reason why this thread has been so full of vitriol is because it strikes at the heart of a topic with very racial overtones (East Vs West, Japanese Vs Swiss, European Superiority, etc). Ideally, we would only be focused on just GS vs PP/ALS/AP, but since the conversation was steering into a general Seiko Vs ETA debate, that simply brought us one step closer to a direction that was not only irrelevant, but ultimately negative.

This is why at this point, it is best to say that neither the 6r15 nor 2824 are relevant to this thread and leave it at that.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Who was using a 6r15 to judge Grand Seiko.
> .


As long as you completely disregard the context everyone was discussing the 6r movements and just use the title of this thread then I suppose you could make that connection. But if people actually read the thread I don't think you could make that connection at all, no one was discussing the 6r movements in relation to the Grand Seiko, the conversation veered in a different direction for a bit.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

ed21x said:


> The reason why this thread has been so full of vitriol is because it strikes at the heart of a topic with very racial overtones (East Vs West, Japanese Vs Swiss, European Superiority, etc). Ideally, we would only be focused on just GS vs PP/ALS/AP, but since the conversation was steering into a general Seiko Vs ETA debate, that simply brought us one step closer to a direction that was not only irrelevant, but ultimately negative.


I disagree, I love Seiko watches and jumped in ONLY when the Seiko FB's were basically starting with the "my $400 SARB is just as good as a $3,000 Swiss mechanical" nonsense. It was the Seiko folks insisting that you can get a much better watch at $600 from Seiko than Swiss which I don't necessarily agree with. It has nothing to do with "racial overtones" if it did why would I own two Seiko's and recommend them? The lower end Seiko's were brought up by folks pushing Seiko, and it was done with an air of ultimate superiority over Swiss. I simply said I think with Hamilton, Tissot and some boutique brands you can get Swiss quality on par with Seiko in the $400-$800 range. Then added both sides can be absolutely insufferable in this debate on the Swiss side it's a bit of snobbery, on the Seiko side it's this ridiculous notion that your $400 watch would be worth thousands if it were Swiss.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> ridiculous notion that your $400 watch would be worth thousands if it were Swiss.


How about one thousand?;-) I'm pretty convinced that you get more bang for your buck with Seiko (and with Sea-Gull, Beijing, Orient and Citizen) than with any Swiss made watch. It's however open to discussion how exactly are we measuring bang in watches.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> How about one thousand?;-) I'm pretty convinced that you get more bang for your buck with Seiko (and with Sea-Gull, Beijing, Orient and Citizen) than with any Swiss made watch. It's however open to discussion how exactly are we measuring bang in watches.


Sub $500 I would agree Seiko has excellent options, but the $600-$1000 market I don't find to be Seiko's niche at all, I think you get plenty of competition from the Swiss there, good options from Seiko but it's not a run away winner, even at $500 Hamilton and Tissot can compete, particularly if you go grey market. If you want a nice affordable pilot's chrono you're not buying a Seiko, you're looking at Hamilton. The sub $300 market absolutely that's owned by Seiko, Orient, Sea-Gull etc... No one is going to debate that.

As for how Grand Seiko compares to companies like ALS etc... well the only reason an ALS costs so much is because it's an ALS so you can't really compare, you can't buy the history or branding that ALS has.

And I honestly don't feel my SARB035 is a $1000+ watch in quality, I love the styling and the movement is OK, but I would never buy it at $1000.


----------



## Lexus050470 (Sep 10, 2012)

ed21x said:


> It's in response to the discussion above where a bunch of people were trying to judge GS's using the 6r15 caliber. This thread needs more lighthearted humor


Oh, I did not get that joke. Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I disagree, I love Seiko watches and jumped in ONLY when the Seiko FB's were basically starting with the "my $400 SARB is just as good as a $3,000 Swiss mechanical" nonsense. It was the Seiko folks insisting that you can get a much better watch at $600 from Seiko than Swiss which I don't necessarily agree with. It has nothing to do with "racial overtones" if it did why would I own two Seiko's and recommend them? The lower end Seiko's were brought up by folks pushing Seiko, and it was done with an air of ultimate superiority over Swiss. I simply said I think with Hamilton, Tissot and some boutique brands you can get Swiss quality on par with Seiko in the $400-$800 range. Then added both sides can be absolutely insufferable in this debate on the Swiss side it's a bit of snobbery, on the Seiko side it's this ridiculous notion that your $400 watch would be worth thousands if it were Swiss.


All of this. This ultimately occurs in EVERY thread discussing GS, Seiko, etc against Swiss brands. You'd think carrying all those chips on their shoulders would've worn them out by now but they're a strong (headed) bunch.

GS, Seiko, etc can and should be enjoyed and appreciated independent of all this nonsense. It does the brands a great disservice, all these comparisons. They can stand on their own merits.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

ed21x said:


> CitizenM's post above illustrates the flawed connection people are trying to make.
> 
> You may claim that it is just a side conversation, but the fact that a 6r15 vs 2824 debate is occurring in the middle of a GS vs AP/PP thread is meant to imply many unnecessary parallels and generalities.
> 
> ...


They are all east of me. Do I think the swiss are better? Perhaps in the segment mentioned in the op, but I will never know as my wallet can't pay for even a gs.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Sub $500 I would agree Seiko has excellent options, but the $600-$1000 market I don't find to be Seiko's niche at all,


It's not Seiko's niche, but still there are some very interesting models in that price range (mostly JDM or limited editions), like SARD001? It was available on Rakuten for $1000. In don't think you can get anything like this for less than $2000-3000 Swiss made.









Or SARW005 (with enamel dial)?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> And I honestly don't feel my SARB035 is a $1000+ watch in quality, I love the styling and the movement is OK, but I would never buy it at $1000.


Of course you wouldn't - because you know it's $500. And I wouldn't buy any Swiss made watch for $1000, because I'm convinced that not a single one is worth more than $500. So I bought Alpinist for $380, because I think it is worth $380 (and I could probably be able to sell it for $400;-) here in EU)

And of course - how exactly do you measure quality anyway?


----------



## Arcitecht (Nov 11, 2010)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Sub $500 I would agree Seiko has excellent options, but the $600-$1000 market I don't find to be Seiko's niche at all, I think you get plenty of competition from the Swiss there, good options from Seiko but it's not a run away winner, even at $500 Hamilton and Tissot can compete, particularly if you go grey market. If you want a nice affordable pilot's chrono you're not buying a Seiko, you're looking at Hamilton. The sub $300 market absolutely that's owned by Seiko, Orient, Sea-Gull etc... No one is going to debate that.
> 
> As for how Grand Seiko compares to companies like ALS etc... well the only reason an ALS costs so much is because it's an ALS so you can't really compare, you can't buy the history or branding that ALS has.
> 
> And I honestly don't feel my SARB035 is a $1000+ watch in quality, I love the styling and the movement is OK, but I would never buy it at $1000.


Yeah, I'd agree overall. There tends to be a lot of exaggeration about how much affordables are really "worth", should they be marketed by the Swiss. I have a Sea-Gull, an m199s, and while its not a bad watch I certainly wouldn't be ok with paying $1k+ for it. These days it sells for around 500, which I think is appropriate, but its not a steal by any means. Same with my Orients and other affordables. Next to my UN it is really obvious where the extra money goes.


----------



## Fi33pop (Aug 5, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course you wouldn't - because you know it's $500. *And I wouldn't buy any Swiss made watch for $1000, because I'm convinced that not a single one is worth more than $500.* So I bought Alpinist for $380, because I think it is worth $380 (and I would probably be able to sell it for $400;-) here in EU)
> 
> And of course - how exactly do you measure quality anyway?


Wow! Just wow!


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course you wouldn't - because you know it's $500. And I wouldn't buy any Swiss made watch for $1000, because I'm convinced that not a single one is worth more than $500. So I bought Alpinist for $380, because I think it is worth $380 (and I would probably be able to sell it for $400;-) here in EU)
> 
> And of course - how exactly do you measure quality anyway?


I wouldn't because of the flaws with it that are really obvious. There's clearly a large gap between the end links and first link, it's really noticeable. The 6r movement is +13 seconds, no decoration or regulation done at all to the movement, the clasp is cheap and the finish on the bracelet isn't even close to the finish on the case.

I love the look of the watch, but $1000+? I don't think I see it, it's just not tight enough.

I think once you get into hand made movements and hand finished watches they are definitely worth well north of $1,000. But I tend to agree that mass produced watches using outsourced movements selling for 5K are ridiculous and I wouldn't buy one. If it's an eta movement with outsourced parts I won't pay over 1K for it, finish and brand name aren't worth 5-8K for me.

I bought my Hamilton X-Wind with a Valjoux 7750 for $699 grey market and it's worth every penny, an awesome watch.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I love the look of the watch, but $1000+? I don't think I see it, it's just not tight enough.


Are you sure you would see it in a $1000 Swiss made watch? Do you perhaps have one and see $1000 in it (in the objectively assessed quality)?


----------



## coastiesquid (Oct 26, 2011)

I do have a SARB033 and while I absolutely love it, it feels like a very well made watch which is appropriately priced. To me, it is seems like I got more watch for my money than I did for my Tissot PRC200. That being said, it is NOT nicer than my BALL Trainmaster 60 Seconds. While it does seem nicer than many $500-$1000 swiss watches, and maybe even a select few of the lower $1k swiss pieces, that is about it. I would drop it in a heart beat for any current Oris, BALL, Breitling, or Omega. IMO Seikos are awesome watches and I love the brand because they have something for everyone regardless of their financial portfolio. Whatever you get, whether it is a $50 Seiko 5, a $200 Orange Monster, a $500 SUMO, $2000 MarineMaster or $5000 GS, you always get a lot of watch for the money.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

coastiesquid said:


> I do have a SARB033 and while I absolutely love it, it feels like a very well made watch which is appropriately priced. To me, it is seems like I got more watch for my money than I did for my Tissot PRC200. That being said, it is NOT nicer than my BALL Trainmaster 60 Seconds. While it does seem nicer than many $500-$1000 swiss watches, and maybe even a select few of the lower $1k swiss pieces, that is about it. I would drop it in a heart beat for any current Oris, BALL, Breitling, or Omega. IMO Seikos are awesome watches and I love the brand because they have something for everyone regardless of their financial portfolio. Whatever you get, whether it is a $50 Seiko 5, a $200 Orange Monster, a $500 SUMO, $2000 MarineMaster or $5000 GS, you always get a lot of watch for the money.


I think a fair statement is that Seiko consistently offers one of the best values in each of the price points that they compete in, but it is perhaps an exaggeration to claim that they offer twice the value (or more) of all their Swiss competitors, except perhaps in the sub $300 mechanical category, which is a segment in which the reputable Swiss companies do not compete in.

In large part, that's because the standard grade ETA 2824-2 movement represents the lower end of the mechanical offerings from reputable Swiss companies, and there's currently no Swiss movement comparable to a bare bones Seiko 7S26, unless you are willing to consider the Claro-Semag CL-888 which is based on the Seagull ST16 movement.


----------



## CitizenM (Dec 9, 2009)

Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

CitizenM said:


> Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


Time to bump your AT vs GS thread up.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

CitizenM said:


> Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


CitizenM, in your own comparison of the Grand Seiko Hi-Beat and the Omega Aqua Terra 8500, you basically said that they were comparable, but that the Grand Seiko had a certain _je ne sais quoi_. I suspect that means that at a subtle level, the quality of finishing on the Grand Seiko is superior to the Omega, which I would readily believe, but there is a substantial gap between an Omega and a Patek, Vacheron, or Audemars.

Having tried on the Omega Aqua Terra numerous times, I think the quality is bracketed by my Tudor Black Bay on the lower end, and my Rolex Submariner on the higher end, and my Vacheron Constantin Overseas is definitely at an entirely different level from my Rolex Submariner. Comparing a Grand Seiko to a Jaeger-LeCoultre seems like a much more apt comparison, as the case finishing on a JLC Master Control is not as refined as a watch from the Big Three.

I should note that I've also tried on Grand Seikos numerous times. While they're exceptional watches, they really feel like competitors to Rolex, Omega, Jaeger-LeCoultre, and Glashutte Original, but not quite at the level of the Big Three. In part, this is because their restrained designs don't really provide sufficient opportunity to showcase what Grand Seiko is capable of doing in terms of finishing.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

CitizenM said:


> Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


There's a few of us. I've posted my opinion comparing GS and Rolex, which I also own. IMHO, the Rolex is better in some ways and the GS is better in others. As far as wrist time, the GS doesn't see very much. Partly because it's a special edition and somewhat collectible, and partly because I don't want to scratch it.

Here's my summary. Both watches were purchased new in the last year:

Case Finishing: tie. Rolex is better finished, GS has more complex curves. 
Movement finishing: Seiko (I'm basing this aspect on pics) but neither movement will wow you like a PP or ALS.


















Bracelet: Rolex
Comfort: GS.
Style: Rolex (the sub-c ND)

Frankly, it's a matter of personal taste which one is "better".


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

CitizenM said:


> Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


I laid out my POV having owned several watches from the "Big 3" and spending a decent amount of time with one GS and "store" time with a couple of others. I think watchnut owns both but not 100% sure he has posted in the thread. But, not knowing how much time you have spent owning or with the big three, GP or JLC I am not sure of your POV either, given the Swiss watches in your sig line aren't the ones in the initial question.

I will agree whole heartedly with your apparent premise since I expressed something similar earlier but I go one step further. I think ultimately we all are just expressing opinions loosely based on mostly limited experience with the watches in question. The debate shifted significantly as people tried to frame the question around watches they had more experience with. In the end and "unbiased" watchmaker with simultaneous access to the watches in question and a couple of days at the workbench tearing them down and examining them with a loupe would be about the only semi-objective answers one would get. I think the simple answer to the OPs question is it is unlikely he will be disappointed in the quality of a GS watch. He may however not find them fully equal to the entry level offerings from the big three save the relatively bargain priced VC OS which I find very similar in quality to the GS watches (except maybe the bracelet). The styling is certainly far more sedate in the GS watches.

In the end I think the design philosophies are quite different between the GS watches and many of the Swiss offerings. I would suggest that if the GS designs capture you then you must give them a significant look as their is no question there is significant quality for money in the Seikos. If however they don't excite you, which is the boat I am in, then you still should have a good look if nothing else for the knowledge it provides, but most of those people will not see the value proposition they offer worth the addition to their collections at that price point.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

CitizenM said:


> Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


I do.

They are my two favorite watches; I absolutely love both of them--the GS SD GMT and the IWC Portuguese Chrono Auto.

But, to my eye, the Grand Seiko is simply better in the fine, tiny details that add up. The crystal is absolutely flawless, practically optical-grade glass, while the crystal on the IWC isn't as "perfect" (at least to my eye). The markers on the GS reflect to be a recognizable pattern ten feet away; not as much on the IWC.

The IWC is a uniquely beautiful design (to my eye); I have no complaints at all about having spent that much money on it. But I do believe that the GS provides a better value.

That's not to say that I have any opinion on how a GS compares with a US$30,000 Swiss watch; I doubt it does, but I don't have enough knowledge to offer a meaningful opinion.

JMO


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

CitizenM said:


> Still not seeing what an overzealous fan or two over the years has to do with Grand Seiko not being very good. Does anyone here even own a nice Swiss mechanical and a Grand Seiko for comparison? Other than me obviously.


I do. I have a gs, 2 omegas, 2 nomos and a breitling. I love all of them and all get equal wrist time. Timekeeping is where I would give the nod to the Europeans. I know this is just a comparison between my actual watches, but the nomos are both about +2 per day regardless of position or power reserve. Tremendously consistent and accurate. My 2 omegas are also great in the same regard, with the 2500c co axial in my planet ocean being by far my most accurate mechanical. The thing gains like 3 seconds a week or something crazy like that. The 9s65 in my gs was initially +12s per day and is now around +3s after a trip back to Japan for adjustment. It is great when on the wrist daily but is much more inconsistent when not fully wound. I do love the silky smooth hand winding of the gs though.

Where the gs truly shines is in build quality, fit and finish. It leaves the others in the dust by a long shot. The bracelet is nicer on the gs than my speedy. Much nicer. The dial work on the gs is just plain art and makes the others seem pedestrian in comparison. The movement is also gorgeous to look at, and nearly flawless in finish. I would say that if it were Swiss or German, it would probably retail for at least twice as much.

When I bought the gs, it was a choice between the gs and a jlc master ultra thin. I went to handle both. I bought the gs. That should tell you something about the ballpark the gs plays in.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> I think the simple answer to the OPs question is it is unlikely he will be disappointed in the quality of a GS watch. He may however not find them fully equal to the entry level offerings from the big three save the relatively bargain priced VC OS which I find very similar in quality to the GS watches (except maybe the bracelet). The styling is certainly far more sedate in the GS watches.


I cross shopped the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15300ST before deciding on the Vacheron Constantin Overseas Automatic, and I think that the VC OS is comparable to the AP RO 15300 in terms of the fit and finish. I do give a nod to the 3120 calibre in the Royal Oak, but the JLC 889/2 based calibre 1126/1 isn't too bad either. The bracelet on the VC OS is however truly sublime, and I certainly found it to be much more comfortable and conformed better to my wrist than the bracelet on the AP RO, and that was ultimately what decided it for me.

In my opinion, the Vacheron Constantin Overseas Automatic and the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15300ST/15400ST compete at a similar level, and the Patek Philippe Nautilus 5711/1A and the Audemars Piguet 15202ST compete at the next higher level. At the end of the day, the reason why I think the Grand Seikos feel a bit less luxurious than the dressy sports watches from the Big Three is that the GS's sedate styling is more directly comparable to the styling of a Rolex or Omega sports watch, and it provides less of an opportunity to showcase the finishing capabilities of Grand Seiko.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

This is a borrowed photo of a Grand Seiko Hi-Beat just to remind us of what we're discussing.










This is a screen shot of the current lineup of Grand Seiko mechanical watches, which reflects the relatively restrained style of the brand. I think it's fair to say that Grand Seiko has no real comparison in Swiss watches, with their designs that look superficially like their more modestly priced offerings, but executed with a level of care and precision that is comparable to the high-end Swiss brands.









The most directly comparable Swiss watch to the GS dress watches is perhaps the JLC Master Control, which is another example of understated elegance and refinement.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

As a follow up, the reason why discussions of Grand Seikos invariably involve a discussion of their cheaper cousins, is because of the common aesthetic throughout the Seiko lineup.

Grand Seiko SBGR053 (MSRP $4400)









Seiko SARB021 ($500 street price)









Seiko SARB033 ($380 street price)









Seiko SNKE01 ($120 street price)


----------



## Beefalope (Sep 23, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I wouldn't because of the flaws with it that are really obvious. There's clearly a large gap between the end links and first link, it's really noticeable. The 6r movement is +13 seconds, no decoration or regulation done at all to the movement, the clasp is cheap and the finish on the bracelet isn't even close to the finish on the case.
> 
> I love the look of the watch, but $1000+? I don't think I see it, it's just not tight enough.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, where did you get that Hamilton for that price? I'm a big fan of that watch -- in addition to Hamilton watches in general, since I think they have great designs -- and would love to pick one up at a price like that.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

mleok said:


> This is a borrowed photo of a Grand Seiko Hi-Beat just to remind us of what we're discussing.
> 
> This is a screen shot of the current lineup of Grand Seiko mechanical watches, which reflects the relatively restrained style of the brand. I think it's fair to say that Grand Seiko has no real comparison in Swiss watches, with their designs that look superficially like their more modestly priced offerings, but executed with a level of care and precision that is comparable to the high-end Swiss brands.
> The most directly comparable Swiss watch to the GS dress watches is perhaps the JLC Master Control, which is another example of understated elegance and refinement.


In the proverbial nutshell, thank you . . .


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Beefalope said:


> Out of curiosity, where did you get that Hamilton for that price? I'm a big fan of that watch -- in addition to Hamilton watches in general, since I think they have great designs -- and would love to pick one up at a price like that.


I trawled eBay for months and found a jeweler with an online store selling NOS X-Winds for $799, I ended up writing him to deal and he sold me one for $699 so I jumped on it, I haven't seen him sell anymore since, I think he was just clearing inventory, and since these had the Valjoux 7750 and not the H21 he just wanted to get money for them. It doesn't have the H21 movement but otherwise was brand new and keeps ~+2 seconds a day, it's an awesome chronograph with a very nice movement, and just looks fantastic, I get compliments on it every time I wear it. I actually sold it when chasing an SMP, but the buyer wanted to refund because it was "too big for his 6.25 inch wrist"... no s***, but I'm glad to have it back, plus the Sumo which depleted my SMP fund, but that's fine I'm content with what I have.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

mleok said:


> I cross shopped the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15300ST before deciding on the Vacheron Constantin Overseas Automatic, and I think that the VC OS is comparable to the AP RO 15300 in terms of the fit and finish. I do give a nod to the 3120 calibre in the Royal Oak, but the JLC 889/2 based calibre 1126/1 isn't too bad either. The bracelet on the VC OS is however truly sublime, and I certainly found it to be much more comfortable and conformed better to my wrist than the bracelet on the AP RO, and that was ultimately what decided it for me.
> 
> In my opinion, the Vacheron Constantin Overseas Automatic and the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak 15300ST/15400ST compete at a similar level, and the Patek Philippe Nautilus 5711/1A and the Audemars Piguet 15202ST compete at the next higher level. At the end of the day, the reason why I think the Grand Seikos feel a bit less luxurious than the dressy sports watches from the Big Three is that the GS's sedate styling is more directly comparable to the styling of a Rolex or Omega sports watch, and it provides less of an opportunity to showcase the finishing capabilities of Grand Seiko.


I agree with your points. I have never owned an AP 51300/15400 only the 15202 which I agree is a step up from the VC OS. There is just something I ended up loving about the VC and the bracelet is not only the most comfortable one I have worn but the finish is amazing and much more complex than it appears at first glance. I prefer it to the bracelet on the Nautilus and my Aquanaut. The GS watches I have had in hand have impeccable finish but IMHO it is not as complex as even on the "bargain" VC OS which begs the question if they built a more complexly finished watch how much of the price difference would evaporate. You see this complexity in the case, bracelet and dial on the big threes low end sport watches.

Just for reference here is a picture of the VC, it is borrowed from the net. I looked to find one that best showed the face to foil against the GS picture but it doesn't do justice to the case nor the bracelet.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> Just for reference here is a picture of the VC, it is borrowed from the net. I looked to find one that best showed the face to foil against the GS picture but it doesn't do justice to the case nor the bracelet.


I'm not sure if it's any better, but this is a photo of mine.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Have not had the pleasure of buckling on an Overseas but hope to someday, given mleok's insightful comments a while back (another thread). What I can say from owning a Jumbo and other watches is that the bracelet on my fairly pedestrian discontinued GS is by far the most comfortable and of better quality from a feel/fit perspective . . .


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

mleok said:


> I'm not sure if it's any better, but this is a photo of mine.


It certainly shows the case better. What it also shows is the one think I dislike about the OS, the fact it is almost impossible to keep to keep the area between the case and bezel spotless. The best thing I have found is the dental Microbrush, also sold in hobby stores for ACC glue application. They are quite small and the smaller ones are about the size of a pencil point.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> It certainly shows the case better. What it also shows is the one think I dislike about the OS, the fact it is almost impossible to keep to keep the area between the case and bezel spotless. The best thing I have found is the dental Microbrush, also sold in hobby stores for ACC glue application. They are quite small and the smaller ones are about the size of a pencil point.


Yes, the Overseas does indeed have a bunch of nooks and crannies that are a challenge to keep spotless.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

I note that the request for people to have a GS before commenting on them isn't extended to having a JLC, GP or the big three.
I also note that while it is questioned why the 6R15 is being used in a discussion that began with GS watches, no mention is made of the relevance of the 2824 when the discussion was talking about JLC, GP or a big three watch. So while it is pointed out that the quality of a 6R15 is no judge of a Grand Seiko, the same isn't mentioned for the other; that the quality of a 2824 is no judge of a JLC (or the rest).

Besides, seriously just how hard is it to understand that the 2824/6R15 discussion was a different and separate one to the OP?



Mike_Dowling said:


> I *trolled* eBay for months and found a jeweler


no offence intended but the word you want, is *trawled*.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> no offence intended but the word you want, is *trawled*.


Fixed and thank you just writing quickly, no offense but it's 'offense', not 'offence' ;-)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Fixed and thank you just writing quickly, no offense but it's 'offense', not 'offence' ;-)


Actually I think it can be spelled both ways, but who's counting ;-) . . .


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

drhr said:


> Actually I think it can be spelled both ways, but who's counting ;-) . . .


I guess it's that London English, they don't use Z's either, crazy stuff.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

drhr said:


> Actually I think it can be *spelled* both ways, but who's counting ;-) . . .


Another interesting one.
When I was in school, it was *spelt*; I think the two are interchangeable now.



drhr said:


> Actually I think it can be *spelled* both ways, but who's *counting* ;-) . . .


I'm not sure if you meant it but that is my kind of humour


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

coastiesquid said:


> I do have a SARB033 and while I absolutely love it, it feels like a very well made watch which is appropriately priced. To me, it is seems like I got more watch for my money than I did for my Tissot PRC200. That being said, it is NOT nicer than my BALL Trainmaster 60 Seconds. While it does seem nicer than many $500-$1000 swiss watches, and maybe even a select few of the lower $1k swiss pieces, that is about it.


This is in fact a great example from my perspective, because Ball 60 Seconds is kind of my grail. I love the Montgomery dial, white enamel and tritium tubes. The problem is that it costs $2000 and is as such IMHO overpriced as virtually all Swiss made watches (less so than most of them, but still overpriced). As I see it, and in comparison with my $380 green Alpinist, it is a $1000 watch, at most. 2-3 times more than SARB017 (and objectively it's closer to 2x than to 3x), but not 5-6 times more. I would buy it for $1000 in a heartbeat.

And this is the main point of this sub-thread, as I see it. It is not that the $500 SARB is a $1000 watch. No, it is exactly what it is - a $500 watch. The problem is that the $2000 Ball is not a $2000 watch, but rather a $1000 watch (like Seiko's SARD001, for example). Of course it is virtually impossible to objectively factor a design into the value, especially when the design is so unique as in 60 Seconds.


----------



## cabfrank (Nov 20, 2010)

It really is. Almost perfect design for all occasions. Love it, but alas, can't afford it.


lorsban said:


> Dear lord that's a beaut!
> 
> Sent from my ST27i using Tapatalk


----------



## coastiesquid (Oct 26, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> This is in fact a great example from my perspective, because Ball 60 Seconds is kind of my grail. I love the Montgomery dial, white enamel and tritium tubes. The problem is that it costs $2000 and is as such IMHO overpriced as virtually all Swiss made watches (less so than most of them, but still overpriced). As I see it, and in comparison with my $380 green Alpinist, it is a $1000 watch, at most. 2-3 times more than SARB017 (and objectively it's closer to 2x than to 3x), but not 5-6 times more. I would buy it for $1000 in a heartbeat.
> 
> And this is the main point of this sub-thread, as I see it. It is not that the $500 SARB is a $1000 watch. No, it is exactly what it is - a $500 watch. The problem is that the $2000 Ball is not a $2000 watch, but rather a $1000 watch (like Seiko's SARD001, for example). Of course it is virtually impossible to objectively factor a design into the value, especially when the design is so unique as in 60 Seconds.


I have the first version which has the more silverish looking dial and just the date. If you really want one, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a pre-owned one, 1st or 2nd version, for pretty close to $1k. Considering the retail is $2k and like most watches, they take a pretty big hit on resale. I'm pretty sure I saw one for close to that price not too long ago (a few months ago) up for sale on Topper's website.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Another interesting one.
> I'm not sure if you meant it but that is my kind of humour


Oh yeah, I always mean what I sa . .er . . write ;-) . . . .


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> no offence intended but the word you want, is *trawled*.


I've seen loads of people use trolled instead of trawled here - just do a search for the word. Another I see often is "i could care less" where they mean "couldn't".

Anyway, what was the outcome of this thread - is GS comparable?!


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

geoffbot said:


> I've seen loads of people use trolled instead of trawled here - just do a search for the word. Another I see often is "i could care less" where they mean "couldn't".
> 
> Anyway, what was the outcome of this thread - *is GS comparable*?!


to trawling?


----------



## at2011 (Jan 23, 2011)

Despite the number of pages created from this thread, I still think the Swiss v. Japanese argument is subjective, and therefore pointless.


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

at2011 said:


> Despite the number of pages created from this thread, I still think the Swiss v. Japanese argument is subjective, and therefore pointless.


Yes, like most arguments/discussions here (and elsewhere). But they can be fun.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Another interesting one.
> When I was in school, it was *spelt*; I think the two are interchangeable now.
> 
> I'm not sure if you meant it but that is my kind of humour


In our (American) english, that's what your wheat is perhaps referred to sometimes (yeah, I'm bored - or boring, depending on who you ask since I think you already know this) . . .;-)


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

drhr said:


> In our (American) english, that's what your wheat is perhaps referred to sometimes


Spelt is a type of wheat; not all wheat is spelt.
We usually see it most often in bread products and nearly always as a whole grain bread because it has a nuttier flavour compared to regular wheat and using the whole grain adds to it.
It's hard to say whether one is better than the other though and breadwise, I prefer a good sour dough over any other bread, no matter where it comes from. I mean, no matter what flour they use.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> Spelt is a type of wheat; not all wheat is spelt.
> We usually see it most often in bread products and nearly always as a whole grain bread because it has a nuttier flavour compared to regular wheat and using the whole grain adds to it.
> It's hard to say whether one is better than the other though and breadwise, I prefer a good sour dough over any other bread, no matter where it comes from. I mean, no matter what flour they use.


Beat me to it, I was editing as you were typing . . . looks like you're bored, too (as opposed to boring) . . .:-d


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> This is in fact a great example from my perspective, because Ball 60 Seconds is kind of my grail. I love the Montgomery dial, white enamel and tritium tubes. The problem is that it costs $2000 and is as such IMHO overpriced as virtually all Swiss made watches (less so than most of them, but still overpriced). As I see it, and in comparison with my $380 green Alpinist, it is a $1000 watch, at most. 2-3 times more than SARB017 (and objectively it's closer to 2x than to 3x), but not 5-6 times more. I would buy it for $1000 in a heartbeat.
> 
> And this is the main point of this sub-thread, as I see it. It is not that the $500 SARB is a $1000 watch. No, it is exactly what it is - a $500 watch. The problem is that the $2000 Ball is not a $2000 watch, but rather a $1000 watch (like Seiko's SARD001, for example). Of course it is virtually impossible to objectively factor a design into the value, especially when the design is so unique as in 60 Seconds.


I am just curious, what do you think of >$20,000 watches? Say some of the lower end AP and PP stuff? I can only assume they seem even worse by a magnitude or so.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> I am just curious, what do you think of >$20,000 watches? Say some of the lower end AP and PP stuff? I can only assume they seem even worse by a magnitude or so.


Exactly. They are all ridiculously overpriced (regarding "parts & labour" or just about any technical aspect, like accuracy or reliability). The possible exceptions are perhaps some extraordinary complications that are not available in less expensive watches, or some entirely hand made unique models (which can be regarded as works of art and valued/priced accordingly). But as far as serial models are concerned, they are IMHO grossly overpriced.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Exactly. They are all ridiculously overpriced (regarding "parts & labour" or just about any technical aspect, like accuracy or reliability). The possible exceptions are perhaps some extraordinary complications that are not available in less expensive watches, or some entirely hand made unique models (which can be regarded as works of art and valued/priced accordingly). But as far as serial models are concerned, they are IMHO grossly overpriced.


Do they sell in quantities sufficient to produce a profit for their makers? If not, they are overpriced. If so, then they're not overpriced. They may cost more than you can pay, or more than you want to pay, but they're not overpriced by any rational standard.

They are priced not based on cost. They are priced based on what the market will pay; the market in general decides whether a luxury item is "overpriced," not any individual. If enough will pay the asking price, it's not overpriced. By definition. To assert that an item is "overpriced" is to assert that the purveyor should lower the price; if it's selling in sufficient quantities, that's an absurd assertion.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

124Spider said:


> Do they sell in quantities sufficient to produce a profit for their makers? If not, they are overpriced. If so, then they're not overpriced. They may cost more than you can pay, or more than you want to pay, but they're not overpriced by any rational standard.
> 
> They are priced not based on cost. They are priced based on what the market will pay; the market in general decides whether a luxury item is "overpriced," not any individual. If enough will pay the asking price, it's not overpriced. By definition. To assert that an item is "overpriced" is to assert that the purveyor should lower the price; if it's selling in sufficient quantities, that's an absurd assertion.


Now that perked me up! I'm thinking these points were made by others in other places, but damn if your version don't chime a nice sound (oh, and I think you be correct in your assertion, too) . . . |>


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> To assert that an item is "overpriced" is to assert that the purveyor should lower the price;


No, it just means that something is priced higher than what it is really worth (or what it costs to produce + profit margins + costs of retail + taxes). It doesn't matter if buyers don't know the real value of the item (or production costs) or are for whatever reason prepared (voluntarily or not) to "overpay".


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> No, it just means that something is priced higher than what it is really worth (or what it costs to produce). It doesn't matter if buyers don't know the real value of the item (or production costs) or are for whatever reason prepared (voluntarily or not) to "overpay".


 LOL!!!

An item is "worth" what a willing buyer, under no compulsion to buy, is willing to pay. It may have no relation to what it costs to produce it; it may be much more or much less. By definition, buyers know the "real value" of an item--they set the "real value" of an item. If enough buyers are willing to pay a particular price, it's silly to assert that that item is "overpriced."

These are utterly non-necessity, luxury items. Cost to produce is utterly irrelevant; what people are willing to pay is the only thing that matters. You can ignore economic reality; you can deny economic reality (as you obviously do), but you cannot change economic reality.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> No, it just means that something is priced higher than what it is really worth (or what it costs to produce + profit margins + costs of retail + taxes). It doesn't matter if buyers don't know the real value of the item (or production costs) or are for whatever reason prepared (voluntarily or not) to "overpay".


I think you're figuring profit margins are only allowed to be so high. They're not. It's entirely acceptable for the unit cost to produce something to approach zero and still be quite expensive. Software and E-books being my two favorite examples. Microsoft had $100Billion socked away in the bank that they couldn't figure out how to spend as fast as it was coming in. Could they have cut their prices? Sure, but they raised them instead.

Was it wrong to do so? Depends on your personal philosophy, but certainly makers of high end watches are no worse. Personally I'd like to own a $30k ALS. I just don't want one as badly as those willing to pay that much so they get them instead.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Cost to produce is utterly irrelevant; what people are willing to pay is the only thing that matters.


Do you really think that they will still be buying some luxury item X for $1000 if some wikileaks will reveal that in fact it costs $10 to produce it?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Do you really think that they will still be buying some luxury item X for $1000 if some wikileaks will reveal that in fact it costs $10 to produce it?


Of course; we don't care even a little bit how much it costs to make a luxury item. All that matters to the vast, vast majority of purchasers of luxury items are (i) how much we want it, and (ii) can we afford it. If the answer to (i) is "enough to pay (ii)," we don't care how much it cost to make.

Why would I care? If it's worth $X to me, why should it be worth less than that if I find that the manufacturer (heaven forbid!) is making a large profit on this luxury item? Or more if the manufacturer's profit margin isn't "enough" (whatever that means to me).

We buy luxury items because we want them. Nothing more complicated than that. Rolex sells almost a million watches each and every year, because they have created a desire on the part of buyers of luxury goods. Those buyers never, for one second, consider how much it costs to make it. Only a few folks on watch forums who don't have a basic understanding of economic forces ever complain about price vs. (perceived) cost to produce.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Will_f said:


> Was it wrong to do so? Depends on your personal philosophy, but certainly makers of high end watches are no worse.


I never said that only high end watches are overpriced. There are A LOT of overpriced things. Homeopathic remedies are overpriced (they are just pure water). Windows OS is usually overpriced (upgrade to 8.0 was $25 or something like that for a period of time, which is not so overpriced). Audiophile grade power cords are overpriced. Designer sneakers are overpriced, and so are some Belgian chocolades, French wines ... Everything that you can regulary buy at sales with 50% or more discount is overpriced.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Do you really think that they will still be buying some luxury item X for $1000 if some wikileaks will reveal that in fact it costs $10 to produce it?


Depends on how you come up with $10. What if the company owner takes a salary that translates into $400/ watch? Is that a cost? How about advertising? What about dealer markup of 50% of the wholesale cost? What about warranty work? How about investing for future designs? Environmental cost? Tax?

Knowing the true cost of anything is harder than it seems.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I never said that only high end watches are overpriced. There are A LOT of overpriced things. Homeopathic remedies are overpriced (they are just pure water). Windows OS is usually overpriced (upgrade to 8.0 was $25 or something like that for a period of time, which is not so overpriced). Audiophile grade power cords are overpriced. Designer sneakers are overpriced, and so are some Belgian chocolades, French wines ... Everything that you can regulary buy at sales with 50% or more discount is overpriced.


There are a lot of things priced more than you are willing to pay. There are a lot of things, about which one can say, "that price doesn't make sense, given the very limited(objective) benefit you get from it."

But, as long as there's no actual fraud going on, and as long as the item is a non-necessity, that item is worth, by definition, what the market will pay.

Again, a million people a year buy a new Rolex. Probably more than that buy a used one. All pay huge bucks for them. Nobody needs them. They're not overpriced, by definition. Nobody asks what they cost to produce. Just because I wouldn't buy a Rolex at half the price (well, I would buy it just to re-sell it, perhaps), so that a Rolex is not "worth" to me what they cost, has absolutely no bearing on whether they're "overpriced." No knowledgeable person would assert that a Rolex is overpriced.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Do you really think that they will still be buying some luxury item X for $1000 if some wikileaks will reveal that in fact it costs $10 to produce it?


Sure, they (we) will. Just ask Luxor.

In the end it is all about diminishing returns. Some people have the money and appreciation (or think they do) to spend huge money on high end Pateks, Ferraris and Hermes purses. Is a Ferrari 458 worth the premium over a Miata, in many peoples eyes the answer is yes, in many peoples eyes no. That question is easier to answer than when talking about the (still large) price difference between a 911 Turbo and the 458. Like most consumer products you tend to get more quality/performance with more money spent, every segment has a it's outliers. The key is you rarely ever get twice the product for twice the price. Each individual must decide where they feel they get the most value for money for them.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Will_f said:


> Knowing the true cost of anything is harder than it seems.


For sure, and if you have no comparison and/or inside knowledge it's next to impossible. Almost everyone knows that $100 for a pint of lager is overpriced. What about a $100 for a small bottle of homeopathic remedy? I can make an educated guess about the value of a particular hi-end watch based on prices of cheap (and not so cheap) Chinese watches, Seikos, Orients, Steinharts, C. Wards, Balls, Omegas ... and based on my knowledge of what's inside that hi-end watch.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I can make an educated guess about the value of a particular hi-end watch based on prices of cheap (and not so cheap) Chinese watches, Seikos, Orients, Steinharts, C. Wards, Balls, Omegas ... and based on my knowledge of what's inside that hi-end watch.


No, you can't.

You can, perhaps, make "an educated guess" as to what it cost to produce that watch (unlikely, but theoretically possible). And you can decide what that watch is worth to you. But only the market in general can decide the "value" of that watch.

"Value" of a luxury item has absolutely nothing to do with cost to produce. The terms are not, by any stretch, interchangeable.


----------



## Jazzmaster (Apr 23, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> In the end it is all about diminishing returns.


Which, I think, aptly describes this thread...;-)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> For sure, and if you have no comparison and/or inside knowledge it's next to impossible. Almost everyone knows that $100 for a pint of lager is overpriced. *What about a $100 for a small bottle of homeopathic remedy*? I can make an educated guess about the value of a particular hi-end watch based on prices of cheap (and not so cheap) Chinese watches, Seikos, Orients, Steinharts, C. Wards, Balls, Omegas ... and based on my knowledge of what's inside that hi-end watch.


I have allergies (bad), tried all the over the counter and Rx stuff, no dice. My doctor's receptionist recommended a homeopathic bottled solution - bingo!!!!! I don't care what it cost to make the stuff, I don't care if it's sugar water, I don't care if it's all placebo effect, I don't care - I'd pay much more than a $100 for a bottle and hope they don't stop making it. Did I mention that it has value for/to me (while others will shrug it off as useless) regardless of cost to manufacture? . . .


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

When it comes to watches, I dont tend to think about what it costs them to make one.
Instead I think about how much it would cost me to make one.
Given that it cost TAGHeuer about 20million Euros (and about eight-ten years) to develop and productionise their latest movement and to build facilities for its production, I think 4000ish Euro is a fair price for one of them, even if the majority of what I pay isn't directly for the watch itself.

The same applies to any thing or service that I cannot do or make myself.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

We did not learn much so far, but since it did not get closed yet....


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> When it comes to watches, I dont tend to think about what it costs them to make one.
> *Instead I think about how much it would cost me to make one.*
> Given that it cost TAGHeuer about 20million Euros (and about eight-ten years) to develop and productionise their latest movement and to build facilities for its production, I think 4000ish Euro is a fair price for one of them, even if the majority of what I pay isn't directly for the watch itself.
> 
> *The same applies to any thing or service that I cannot do or make myself*.


Enjoyed that! You keep comin' up with effective/pointed ways to make a point (no pun), thx . . . . .


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Given that it cost TAGHeuer about 20million Euros (and about eight-ten years) to develop and productionise their latest movement and to build facilities for its production, I think 4000ish Euro is a fair price for one of them, even if the majority of what I pay isn't directly for the watch itself.
> The same applies to any thing or service that I cannot do or make myself.


And I'm pretty sure you will be able to dream up some quasi rationalisation to explain why this TAGHeuer is 5-times more expensive than some equivalent Seiko. You are the ideal consumer - pay what they ask you to pay and don't ask stupid questions;-)


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> And I'm pretty sure you will be able to dream up some quasi rationalisation to explain why this TAGHeuer is 5-times more expensive than some equivalent Seiko.


It's not my fault that you seem to think that products like watch movements just fall out of the sky and come out of factories and whatever with no background costs.
It's not five times the cost of an equivalent Seiko; it is _maybe_ twice the price.



Okapi001 said:


> pay what they ask you to pay and don't ask stupid questions


I'm glad you realise your questions are stupid.


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

Market value, intrinsic value, value for money are all vastly different concepts.

My understanding of each is as follows:

Market value (or the price that a seller may ask for a given good or service) is strictly a factor of how much a willing buyer, free of constraints or of any obligation to buy, is prepared to pay for the good and service. That remains true regardless of the intrinsic value of the good or service. If enough willing buyers are prepared to pay X price, then the seller will have no problem demanding X to sell the good or service. Simple as that.

Intrinsic value and value for dollar are harder to define, because I don't even think there is a generalized agreement from people whether this should be an objective review or a mixed review of objective and subjective factors. What someone finds "valuable" vs what someone else may consider "valuable" will vary. 

Speaking to "objective" factors only, I think a Grand Seiko compares VERY favorably to most high-end mass produced swiss watches out there (i.e., Rolex, Omega, Breitling). Taking subjective factors into consideration, the waters get considerably murkier, as some people may attach more subjective "value" to a Rolex or other swiss watch, for many reasons, tangible, intangible, real or imagined. Notwithstanding this, one cannot deny that such subjective factors not only exist, but constitute a significant part of the "value" equation for most people. Which would tend to explain why the "market value" of a Rolex is as much as double that of a comparable (or perhaps even objectively better!) Grand Seiko.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

We are taking an individual determination of value and overlaying that with some monetary figure in dollars, pounds or cedi. The problem with that is every person has a different value of the currency itself. A man with $50,000,000 in his bank account may see the difference between a $5,000 watch and a $20,000 watch much the same way I see a $5 lunch and a $20 lunch. I may see the extra $15 as a negligible difference considering the diminishing returns I do get, the extra $15,000 may be quite negligible to the man with $50 million. It may well be that a person what can not or will not spend the extra $15 on lunch needs to be of the mindset that the extra money is wasted and the $5 lunch is just as good. If we all were equally financially endowed then the value converted to currency might have more relevance. As it is the members of this forum are probably a pretty wide cross section of the economic strata and thus will see matters of cost very differently. My point being value is personal to begin with when it gets quantified to currency it becomes even more individual in large part due to differing economic situations.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> It's not five times the cost of an equivalent Seiko; it is _maybe_ twice the price.


_"Maybe_ twice the price" is in my book quite enough to designate it as overpriced. Q.E.D.;-)


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> I may see the extra $15 as a negligible difference considering the diminishing returns I do get, the extra $15,000 may be quite negligible to the man with $50 million. It may well be that a person what can not or will not spend the extra $15 on lunch needs to be of the mindset that the extra money is wasted and the $5 lunch is just as good.


And here is the basic fallacy of consumerism again. An extra $15 (or $50 or $500) will not automaticaly buy you a better lunch (or watch or whatever), regardless how big or small is the "diminished return". It can be only equaly good or even (far) worse.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> _"Maybe_ twice the price" is in my book quite enough to designate it as overpriced. Q.E.D.;-)


and that being twice the price is a reflection of the different costs related to development and productionising of the movement.
As is mentioned before elsewhere, Seiko is a design/manufacturing giant has all of the necessary facilities in place to develop a/any movement.

Creating a new movement for them is purely about the design/engineering of the movement.
For TAGHeuer, development of the movement included purchasing land, designing and building a production facility, commissioning new manufacturing equipment, employing new people, negotiating new supply chains for materials they might not have etc etc. In short, it cost them much more than it would cost Seiko, which is reflected in the price of the final product.
How's that for QED?

The 20million ish Euro is for costs on top of another 20million ish Euro that TAGHeuer invested in the previous manufacturing facilities. Their total costs so far to get their movement manufacturing facilities fully operational (their previous set up was in an annex of their case/bracelet manufacturing building) is around 40million.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> _"Maybe_ twice the price" is in my book quite enough to designate it as overpriced. Q.E.D.;-)


You don't get to say QED when you're talking about a personal opinion!

Unless all you mean to say is that you've demonstrated that you have an opinion...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> And here is the basic fallacy of consumerism again. An extra $15 (or $50 or $500) will not automaticaly buy you a better lunch (or watch or whatever), regardless how big or small is the "diminished return". It can be only equaly good or even (far) worse.


I don't think anyone here is saying that more money automatically buys a better anything. They're saying that for many people the extra money, is money well spent. And the more money you have, the less concerned you are about how much a marginal increase in pleasure is costing you.

You need to stop looking at this as though there is some objective reality out there about value and quality, as though there is some logical proof that vindicates your personal position and invalidates others.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> For TAGHeuer, development of the movement included purchasing land, designing and building a production facility, commissioning new manufacturing equipment, employing new people, negotiating new supply chains for materials they might not have etc etc. In short, it cost them much more than it would cost Seiko, which is reflected in the price of the final product.
> How's that for QED?


It's still QED;-) Because all those additional production costs (real or not) are not my problem, but TAG's. I couldn't care less if a watch is overpriced because someone is trying to have extra profit on my expense, because of higher taxes, lower productivity, outdated production lines, higher labour costs or some other reason.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> It's still QED;-) Because all those additional production costs (real or not) are not my problem, but TAG's. I couldn't care less if a watch is overpriced because someone is trying to have extra profit on my expense, because of higher taxes, lower productivity, outdated production lines, higher labour costs or some other reason.


Really?
Because that logic is just plain stupid and if that is the level of intelligence I'm dealing with, then I'm done here.
Without those costs, the company, the movement and therefore the watch doesn't exist.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Really?
> Because that logic is just plain stupid and if that is the level of intelligence I'm dealing with, then I'm done here.
> Without those costs, the company, the movement and therefore the watch doesn't exist.


As I've already said - you are the ideal consumer. Have fun.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> As I've already said - you are the ideal consumer. Have fun.


As are you. In fact anyone who's been persuaded to buy a mechanical watch - from any manufacturer - in this day and age is clearly an ideal consumer. How else could they be persuaded to spend good, hard earned, money on a device that does one or two things marginally well?


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> No, it just means that something is priced higher than what it is really worth (or what it costs to produce + profit margins + costs of retail + taxes). It doesn't matter if buyers don't know the real value of the item (or production costs) or are for whatever reason prepared (voluntarily or not) to "overpay".


Hmmm.

Rick "recommending an economics course, and one not taught by a Leninist" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> For sure, and if you have no comparison and/or inside knowledge it's next to impossible. Almost everyone knows that $100 for a pint of lager is overpriced. What about a $100 for a small bottle of homeopathic remedy? I can make an educated guess about the value of a particular hi-end watch based on prices of cheap (and not so cheap) Chinese watches, Seikos, Orients, Steinharts, C. Wards, Balls, Omegas ... and based on my knowledge of what's inside that hi-end watch.


There have been threads in this forum devoted to the number of employees versus the production volume of a whole range of watch companies. (Not Seiko.) Some companies have large numbers of employees producing and selling relatively few watches. Those tend to be the companies with the highest prices.

If they are ripping their customers off, then I am compelled to ask, what are those employees doing? If their watches really are no better than those in your list, then they must be paying people to just sit around and do nothing.

Somehow, I don't think that's what's happening. If they are not sitting around doing nothing, then they must be doing something. If that something is not adding value somehow (and making and fulfilling the market is adding value), then I rather think the CEOs of those companies would 1.) know it, and 2.) do something about it. The tricky bit is that the value they add may have no value to _you._ But you cannot assume that just because you don't value what they add, that you are the only smart guy in the room.

(The companies with the most marketing paid by the factory, by the way, are not the ones with the lowest production/staff ratio.)

Rick "thinking this thread is too full of arguments made by people unwilling to discern what it is that the companies in the thread title actually produce" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> It's still QED;-) Because all those additional production costs (real or not) are not my problem, but TAG's. I couldn't care less if a watch is overpriced because someone is trying to have extra profit on my expense, because of higher taxes, lower productivity, outdated production lines, higher labour costs or some other reason.


Why are you a watch enthusiast? It would seem that you are just too smart to be drawn in by watches. I mean, the $500 watch you think is acceptable is to much of the world an unimaginable luxury, worth essentially nothing to them, given that know all they need from timekeeping provided by the Sun or by some externally provided service.

Rick "just wondering" Denney


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> If they are ripping their customers off, then I am compelled to ask, what are those employees doing?


I couldn't care less. Are you prepared to pay twice as much for a very slow carpenter - because he needs twice as much time to finish a job as a faster one? Or for one who came with three assistants to do a job where only one would be more than enough?


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> I couldn't care less. Are you prepared to pay twice as much for a very slow carpenter - because he needs twice as much time to finish a job as a faster one? Or for one who came with three assistants to do a job where only one would be more than enough?


I know you say you don't _care._ But if it is true that you don't care, then why do you have an opinion on the costs to make nice watches? It would seem to me that one expressing an opinion on the matter--no, that's not strong enough--one expressing a _firm conclusion_ on the matter is demonstrating that he does indeed care.

Yes, I'm prepared to pay twice as much for a slow carpenter, if that means he will produce a product that looks as though he cared about the quality. And I'm prepared to hire contractors who have slow, high-quality carpenters rather than those who have fired all those craftsmen and replaced them with kids who have iPods jammed in their ears producing a lot of poor work quickly.

In fact, I've paid _more_ than twice as much for a carpenter based on quality work. Life is too short to put up with poor quality, and I've done enough of my own carpentry to know how hard it is to do it well.

I'm not prepared to pay for assistants who sit around and do nothing. But then I don't believe that the owners and managers of those Swiss watch companies (or the Japanese ones, for that matter) are willing to do so, either.

When I look into the movement, case, dial, and design of my Zenith, I see evidence of quality--subtle, it is true, but then that matters to me--beyond what I see in an Ebel. And when I look into the movement, case, dial, and design of the Ebel, I see quality beyond what I see in the cheaper watches I've examined. I also see evidence of _style._ I have and own many inexpensive watches. They are fun and bring me joy, but they do not have the style and subtle quality of my Ebels and Zenith.

That evidence of quality is worth something to me. That's why I paid for it. That doesn't mean I didn't shop for stunningly good deals, of course--I did. But just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Even so, you haven't answered my question: Why are you a watch enthusiast? What watches do you own? What do you admire in those watches that you own? Please.

Rick "really curious" Denney


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> *I couldn't care less*. Are you prepared to pay twice as much for a very slow carpenter - because he needs twice as much time to finish a job as a faster one? Or for one who came with three assistants to do a job where only one would be more than enough?


au contraire, you obviously do, otherwise this "discussion" would have ended long ago . . .


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> What watches do you own? What do you admire in those watches that you own? Please.
> 
> Rick "really curious" Denney


Here are some of them.
https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/okapis-humble-affordable-collection-926761.html
Plus Sea-Gull Seamaster, Botta 24, vintage Seiko ...


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> It's still QED;-) Because all those additional production costs (real or not) are not my problem, but TAG's. I couldn't care less if a watch is overpriced because someone is trying to have extra profit on my expense, because of higher taxes, lower productivity, outdated production lines, higher labour costs or some other reason.


Just out of curiosity, given your stated disdain for any watch costing more than $500, what pleasure are you getting, or benefit are you conferring, by your dozens of posts, full of odd personal opinion and utterly flawed economic theory, in a thread about watches that cost many times your stated max?

On second thought, I'm just feeding the troll. Forget that I asked.


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

This thread has derailed so badly 

Okapi. You own under $500 watches and you tell people who own more expensive watches that theirs are overpriced? What are you thinking? We're on a watch forum. You don't sound very passionate about watches being that narrow-minded. Not everyone cares about the price of the watch. You're taking your opinion too far.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> Here are some of them.
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/okapis-humble-affordable-collection-926761.html
> Plus Sea-Gull Seamaster, Botta 24, vintage Seiko ...


I have a quartz Seiko 150, too. It's a nice hundred-dollar watch, and it was a gift to me by my parents many years ago. But the bracelet is folded sheet metal rather than solid, the clasp is stamped and poorly finished, and the case is finished to...basic standards. It's a nice enough watch for what it is and for what it cost, and I certainlly was never embarassed to wear it. But compared to a more expensive watch (from any country of origin), and the differences are not subtle. The movement in the 150 is a plastic-fantastic, though--I recently changed the battery in mine.

I also own a Seiko Monster SRP307--it is made MUCH better than the 150. I would put it in the category of excellent value--one gets a watch for $250 that competes reasonably with watches that cost $500 (which is, it must be said, the SRP's MSRP). Lots of WISes who have much more expensive pieces in their collections still have a Monster. But the movement is basically unfinished. It's designed to work cheaply and control costs. It hacks, it winds (being the newer 4R36 movement), but the watch doesn't have a display back for more reasons than it being a diver.

I also have a Seagull ST-19 movement in my 1963 reissue. That watch was also a good value at $200, but the only finissage on the movement are painted blue screws, moderately polished chronograph levers, and imitation fly-cut cotes de Geneve on the chronograph bridge. There is no finishing on the plates, or under the levers. It's a good value, but it is designed for surface glitter more than deep finished beauty.










Here's the movement in the Zenith. The cotes de Geneve are not simulated here, and if you looke deeply into the movement with a loupe, you see finishing all the way down to the plate, where it's hard to see. They put that there just because it's a sign of deep quality to do so. It's done by the watchmaking equivalent of a slow carpenter (though, being Zenith, more likely a careful, diligent, and very well-trained young woman). The picture shows how closely the bracelet parts fit together, too.










And here's the movement of one of my Ebels with the cal. 137 movement. It takes a practiced eye and a strong loupe to see the improvement that Zenith makes on this level of finishing. But you can see the perlage applied underneath the chronograph levers, and the finished on the chronograph bridge (at 10:30 in this picture, above and to the left of the rotor). And the polished parts (like the screws) are polished to a higher degree by far than the polished parts on the Seagull.










Here's the front side of my Zenith. Notice how tightly the bracelet fits the case? (It's actually tighter than in these photos when on my arm, which it happens to be at the moment). The 60's style domed crystal is still AR-coated sapphire with polished edges to achieve the dome shape. The blue cast is the AR coating in the light I used to make the photo. The sub-dials have a machine-turned circular guilloche that would be molded on cheaper watches. The dial is enameled, not painted. Notice how crisp are the corners of the case? The top surface is brushed, but the chamfers are polished. That can't be done with a big, honking polishing wheel. But the case design is still subtle and flowing. The Seagull case is nice, but it has been polished on a big wheel that has taken that crispness away a bit. (Same with my Seiko Monster.) And the bracelet end pieces do not fit that well. It's a good watch, but still not in the same league. And each of the links in that Zenith bracelet nest into each other with a gap too small to catch hairs on my arm, and held with a screwed stud so that the bracelet can be disassembled for cleaning without wearing out friction-fitted parts.










These differences may not be at all important to you, and until relatively recently I was not prepared to afford them myself. That little bit of extra finishing costs a lot, even when the watch is made in Japan. But these are the sorts of things people are looking for when spend what these watches cost. Subtlety is expensive, because it takes slow carpenters (like, _really_ slow) to achieve it. And I think you'll find that the Seagull pieces will become more expensive over time, because their costs are going to increase beyond what their price allows. They will have to improve the overall quality to attract higher prices, or control costs by doing less of their even simple finishing. Their workers will not accept typical low Chinese wages for long when their country has become so propsperous. Seiko has made that transition too, though decades ago. They work in enough quantity to produce better quality at some price points than one expects, but they do so by appealing to a homogeneous population with common-denominator styling. The Swiss companies are more adventurous, given smaller production and somewhat higher prices.

Back on thread topic: That Zenith movement looks to me comparable to Grand Seiko (if GS had a chronograph). I don't think the GS dial details and hands outshine the Zenith, either. The Zenith Captain Central Seconds with the Elite movement is finished as well, and is about the same price as the GS.

There's nothing wrong with inexpensive and affordable watches. But there's nothing wrong with expensive and exclusive watches, either. There are good deals and bad deals at all price points.

Rick "who really like the Botta" Denney


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Rdenney said:


> Back on thread topic: That Zenith movement looks to me comparable to Grand Seiko (if GS had a chronograph). I don't think the GS dial details and hands outshine the Zenith, either. The Zenith Captain Central Seconds with the Elite movement is finished as well, and is about the same price as the GS.


Just as a point of fact, There is a GS chronograph, which comes in a variety of flavors (all with the same fabulous Spring Drive movement). Having never spent time with either the beautiful Zenith or one of the GS chronos, I cannot compare them.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

124Spider said:


> Just as a point of fact, There is a GS chronograph, which comes in a variety of flavors (all with the same fabulous Spring Drive movement).


the Grand Seiko Spring Drive Chronograph is also about 75% more expensive than that TAGHeuer one I was talking about.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

124Spider said:


> Just as a point of fact, There is a GS chronograph, which comes in a variety of flavors (all with the same fabulous Spring Drive movement). Having never spent time with either the beautiful Zenith or one of the GS chronos, I cannot compare them.


It would be hard to compare a Spring Drive with a traditional balance wheel movement. And I've never seen a Grand Seiko in the metal (which is why I didn't answer the original post). The pictures I've seen shown a nicely finished movement on a par with similiarly priced but lesser known (to the general public) Swiss watches (e.g. Zenith). But all the designs I've seen were rather heavy looking--they somehow missed how to make a watch seem _svelte, _which seems a design goal for the 60's design style they are recalling.

Rick "but that is purely subjective" Denney


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> the Grand Seiko Spring Drive Chronograph is also about 75% more expensive than that TAGHeuer one I was talking about.


not that I'm saying the TAGHeuer is as good as the GS Spring Drive; more that when something costs more to make, it usually costs more to buy.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Just out of curiosity, given your stated disdain for any watch costing more than $500, what pleasure are you getting, or benefit are you conferring, by your dozens of posts, full of odd personal opinion and utterly flawed economic theory, in a thread about watches that cost many times your stated max?
> 
> On second thought, I'm just feeding the troll. Forget that I asked.


My feeling is that perhaps he wants to be acknowledged as have paid $500 for something supposedly worth substantially more? Being that he's super aware of value?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

mikeylacroix said:


> My feeling is that perhaps he wants to be acknowledged as have paid $500 for something supposedly worth substantially more? Being that he's super aware of value?


I wish him good luck with that quest. Kind of. He's going about it in an odd way, and picked an odd thread in which to spread his peculiar gospel.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> These differences may not be at all important to you, and until relatively recently I was not prepared to afford them myself. That little bit of extra finishing costs a lot, even when the watch is made in Japan. But these are the sorts of things people are looking for when spend what these watches cost. Subtlety is expensive....
> 
> ... I don't think the GS dial details and hands outshine the Zenith, either...
> 
> Rick "who really like the Botta" Denney


Rick, you really need to get hold of a GS for first hand inspection. You'll be pleasantly surprised given your appreciation for finesse and subtlety. Cheers!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

mikeylacroix said:


> My feeling is that perhaps he wants to be acknowledged as have paid $500 for something supposedly worth substantially more? Being that he's super aware of value?


I'm at a bit of a loss as to which of his watches he believes is worth substantially more that what he paid. His Seiko Sportura Kinetic Perpetual and Seiko Alpinist are certainly excellent values, but none of them are even remotely close to the quality of a GS, JLC, GP, VC, PP, or AP.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mikeylacroix said:


> My feeling is that perhaps he wants to be acknowledged as have paid $500 for something supposedly worth substantially more? Being that he's super aware of value?


You have obviously missed the part where I have clearly stated that it's not worth more. And you can continue to live in your fantasy world and enjoy your fair-priced luxury watches. Owners of Swiss watch companies are lucky that there are enough consumers like you;-)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> You have obviously missed the part where I have clearly stated that it's not worth more. And you can continue to live in your fantasy world and enjoy your fair-priced luxury watches. Owners of Swiss watch companies are lucky that there are enough consumers like you;-)


Swiss watch companies are not the one ones offering high priced watches.

Beijing Watch Factory Wu Ji, Chinese, $75K









A. Lange & Sohne Turbograph, German, $500K









Credor Minute Repeater, Japanese, $400K


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> You have obviously missed the part where I have clearly stated that it's not worth more. And you can continue to live in your fantasy world and enjoy your fair-priced luxury watches. Owners of Swiss watch companies are lucky that there are enough consumers like you;-)


I guess he just wants to be acknowledged as an obnoxious oddball.

Consider it done.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Yes, and there are those who are convinced that 1 m of audiophile grade power cord made by Nordost is really worth $10,000 - and they can hear every dollar of difference It's made by a bunch of really very slow artisans


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> I guess he just wants to be acknowledged as an obnoxious oddball.
> 
> Consider it done.


At least he's knocked off the QED nonsense. Nothing annoys me quite so much as someone who uses philosophical / logic terms in a profoundly incorrect manner. QED.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, and there are those that are convinced that 1 m of audiophile grade power cord made by Nordost is really worth $10,000 - and they can hear every dollar of difference It's made by a bunch of really very slow artisans
> View attachment 1300233


What is it with you and slow moving artisans. Do you not believe in craft? In the quality that comes when someone devotes the entirety of their person to the perfection of one artistic endeavour? I have a hard time believing that given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> At least he's knocked off the QED nonsense. Nothing annoys me quite so much as someone who uses philosophical / logic terms in a profoundly incorrect manner. QED.


There are few things in academic life quite as satisfying as using "QED" in a appropriate fashion, after successfully proving a very difficult theorem/proposition. But there are few things as annoying as someone using "QED" when it hasn't been earned.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

124Spider said:


> There are few things in academic life quite as satisfying as using "QED" in a appropriate fashion, after successfully proving a very difficult theorem/proposition. But there are few things as annoying as someone using "QED" when it hasn't been earned.


Hey Mark, are you a mathematician too?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

mleok said:


> Hey Mark, are you a mathematician too?


I was; I got two degrees in math before realizing that there were no tenure track jobs out there (mid-1970s); decided that being able to make a living was a good thing, so went to law school. It worked out pretty well. As did marrying my college girlfriend, the most wonderful (and generous) woman who ever lived.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> What is it with you and slow moving artisans. Do you not believe in craft? In the quality that comes when someone devotes the entirety of their person to the perfection of one artistic endeavour? I have a hard time believing that given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.


I don't believe that if you are slow you must therefore be good. Exactly as I don't believe that if you are expensive you must therefore be good. But here are obviously some that are convinced that if you are slow you automaticaly deserve to be paid more.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> I was; I got two degrees in math before realizing that there were no tenure track jobs out there (mid-1970s); decided that being able to make a living was a good thing, so went to law school. It worked out pretty well. As did marrying my college girlfriend, the most wonderful (and generous) woman who ever lived.


Huh - sounds similar to my own track. Except replace Math with Philosophy (largely the philosophy of Science and deductive logic). And college with, well, post-college.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't believe that if you are slow you must therefore be good. Exactly as I don't believe that if you are expensive you must therefore be good. But here are obviously some that are convinced that if you are slow you automaticaly deserve to be paid more.


Can you point me to one person, in this entire thread, who has said that expensive and / or slow always equals good?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> You have obviously missed the part where I have clearly stated that it's not worth more. And you can continue to live in your fantasy world and enjoy your fair-priced luxury watches. Owners of Swiss watch companies are lucky that there are enough consumers like you;-)


It is always amusing when one decides they are the arbiter of good sense and/or wisdom. Given the median income for a denizen of the world is about $1200 per year your $500 watch is probably overt consumerism at its best on the grand scale. When one thinks they have the value formula figured out for all people that person is clearly the one living in a fantasy world.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't believe that if you are slow you must therefore be good. Exactly as I don't believe that if you are expensive you must therefore be good. But here are obviously some that are convinced that if you are slow you automaticaly deserve to be paid more.


This is a classic example of a straw man argument. We are simply saying that oftentimes, quality work requires time and skill, and that it should be adequately compensated.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> Huh - sounds similar to my own track. Except replace Math with Philosophy (largely the philosophy of Science and deductive logic). And college with, well, post-college.


I took a number of symbolic logic/philosophy of science (including even a graduate course on the philosophy of space and time) while in college; interesting, fun stuff!


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

124Spider said:


> I was; I got two degrees in math before realizing that there were no tenure track jobs out there (mid-1970s); decided that being able to make a living was a good thing, so went to law school. It worked out pretty well. As did marrying my college girlfriend, the most wonderful (and generous) woman who ever lived.


Cool, I'm a tenured full professor of mathematics, which is probably an endangered species in academia.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

mleok said:


> Cool, I'm a tenured full professor of mathematics, which is probably an endangered species in academia.


I did algebraic topology and differential geometry; what's your area?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, and there are those who are convinced that 1 m of audiophile grade power cord made by Nordost is really worth $10,000 - and they can hear every dollar of difference It's made by a bunch of really very slow artisans


Red herring. Then again every argument you have made here is a red herring given it has distracted from the initial query.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> Can you point me to one person, in this entire thread, who has said that expensive and / or slow always equals good?


Well, Rick for example wrote: "If their watches really are no better than those in your list, then they must be paying people to just sit around and do nothing. *Somehow, I don't think that's what's happening. "
*He obviously thinks that if the watch is more expensive, it must somehow be better (even if the difference is very subtle).


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> I took a number of symbolic logic/philosophy of science (including even a graduate course on the philosophy of space and time) while in college; interesting, fun stuff!


Yeah - very fun. I'd have been happy doing it for a living, but as you mentioned, the job prospects were less than stellar.

Did you ever do any mathematical logic? I remember taking a course in that which I quite enjoyed - the M.A. / TA was quite the sight. The complete stereotype of a logic professor - right down to the sweater vests, constantly glowing pipe, drivers cap, and Mason's ring. Interesting guy - but I have no idea what ever happened to him.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> Yeah - very fun. I'd have been happy doing it for a living, but as you mentioned, the job prospects were less than stellar.
> 
> Did you ever do any mathematical logic? I remember taking a course in that which I quite enjoyed - the M.A. / TA was quite the sight. The complete stereotype of a logic professor - right down to the sweater vests, constantly glowing pipe, drivers cap, and Mason's ring. Interesting guy - but I have no idea what ever happened to him.


No, I never did. All these years later, I'm not sure why. I do remember, each semester when it came time to sign up for courses, lamenting, "So many wonderful courses, so little time!"

But the rigorous math (with lots and lots of proofs), and the logic course I did take, certainly made law school's "thinking like a lawyer" come pretty easily!


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

So, no more talking about watches?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Robotaz said:


> So, no more talking about watches?


I thought the level of the discourse has been better on this poor thread when not talking about watches than when (nominally) talking about watches.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Well, Rick for example wrote: "If their watches really are no better than those in your list, then they must be paying people to just sit around and do nothing. *Somehow, I don't think that's what's happening. "
> *He obviously thinks that if the watch is more expensive, it must somehow be better (even if the difference is very subtle).


Maybe, just maybe some people in this thread have far more experience with the watches in the OP's post. Their expended frame of reference might have been a path to enlightenment. Maybe you don't care whether Cotes de Geneva are hand cut, or precise anglage is present everywhere two planes intersect, but is it so hard to believe that this is important to some people and they find value in the craftsmanship?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

124Spider said:


> I did algebraic topology and differential geometry; what's your area?


I'm a numerical analyst with a focus on problems that have a differential geometric flavor. This includes discrete analogues of differential forms, symplectic flows on nonlinear manifolds, and discretizations of gauge field theories.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> Well, Rick for example wrote: "If their watches really are no better than those in your list, then they must be paying people to just sit around and do nothing. *Somehow, I don't think that's what's happening. "
> *He obviously thinks that if the watch is more expensive, it must somehow be better (even if the difference is very subtle).


No, he's simply saying that since a company is hiring so many artisans and master watchmakers and yet produces a relatively small number of timepieces, it suggests that there is much more hand finishing that goes into these watches than in lower end watches.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> but is it so hard to believe that this is important to some people and they find value in the craftsmanship?


Is it so hard to understand that if something requires for example 1 hour handwork by a skilled craftsman a fair (retail) price is $100 and $500 is overpriced?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> No, he's simply saying that since a company is hiring so many artisans and master watchmakers and yet produces a relatively small number of timepieces, it suggests that there is much more hand finishing that goes into these watches than in lower end watches.


No, he is saying that there is much more hand finishing AND because of that those watches must be better.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Is it so hard to understand that if something requires for example 1 hour handwork by a skilled craftsman a fair (retail) price is $100 and $500 is overpriced?


o|

Yes, if the market is happy to pay $500.

What you refuse to acknowledge is the simple economic reality that the buying public sets the price of luxury goods, in an open, fair market. If the market buys at that price, it's not, by definition, "overpriced." Regardless of the cost to produce.

Sheesh....


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Is it so hard to understand that if something requires for example 1 hour handwork by a skilled craftsman a fair (retail) price is $100 and $500 is overpriced?


That is a ridiculous open ended question. Are you talking about just the labor costs? I would say that most craftsmen who are among the very best at their craft can command over $100 (some FAR over) at retail for labor costs alone. I am guessing you don't have much of a clue how labor costs add up at retail. Most car repair shops charge more than that for labor.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

OK, so my English is not good - please tell me what is the correct English term for the price of those Nordost's $10,000 cables. Or for $1000 Invictas or Stuhrlings that you can regularly get with a 90% discount? It they are not overpriced - what are they?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> No, he is saying that there is much more hand finishing AND because of that those watches must be better.


It will have a higher level of finish, no?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> That is a ridiculous open ended question. Are you talking about just the labor costs? I would say that most craftsmen who are among the very best at their craft can command over $100 (some FAR over) at retail for labor costs alone. I am guessing you don't have much of a clue how labor costs add up at retail. Most car repair shops charge more than that for labor.


You can insert your own numbers if you want - the question (or claim) remains the same. If something requires 1 hour work, the fair price is $x and $5x is overpriced.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> No, he is saying that there is much more hand finishing AND because of that those watches must be better.


Mechanical watches are an anachronism driven in large part by a nostalgia for traditional watchmaking traditions, and for those of us who appreciate traditional artistry and craftsmanship, hand finishing is something that is indeed highly valued.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so my English is not good - please tell me what is the correct English term for the price of those Nordost's $10,000 cables. Or for $1000 Invictas or Stuhrlings that you can regularly get with a 90% discount? It they are not overpriced - what are they?


Properly priced, perhaps.

Again. If they're selling at that price, they're not overpriced. By definition.

Invicta and the like are just playing a silly game, that confuses some. They quote a ridiculous "retail price," and they will sell some to ignorant buyers. And they're happy to sell most at a deep "discount."

It's the same tactic used by Persian carpet dealers the world over.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Properly priced, perhaps..


Try highway robbery instead


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

The more everyone feeds the troll here, the more he will return to troll....

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> You can insert your own numbers if you want - the question (or claim) remains the same. If something requires 1 hour work, the fair price is $x and $5x is overpriced.


If a product is truly overpriced, then it means that the barriers to entry (in terms of capital and expertise) are sufficiently low, and the profit margins are sufficiently high that a competitor offering a comparable product at a lower price will eventually emerge.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> that a competitor offering a comparable product at a lower price will eventually emerge.


You mean something like Grand Seiko?;-)


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Unfortunately I'll never be able to take pictures like this one I lifted off the web. I just want to acknowledge it's from a GS owner named Joe I believe. I believe the quality is not hard to see and appreciate. Cheers!









Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> You mean something like Grand Seiko?;-)


No, like an A. Lange Sohne . . .


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> You can insert your own numbers if you want - the question (or claim) remains the same. If something requires 1 hour work, the fair price is $x and $5x is overpriced.


Sure OK. But you have not made a point now. For there to be a useful point you would have to make X be a number and you would have to multiply that by the hours it takes to make a specific good and determine if the good was marketed at X * hours or 5X * hours. You can't make that argument without numbers.

On your other post what does Invictas marketing approach have to do with the discussion. They set the retail at the level they do just so they can sell them at the price they wanted all along AND be able to give one a "deal".

As I said the power cord is a red herring. You are equating a product that has never been proven through ABX to have any audible benefit, so it becomes a binary question for most audiophiles. It does have a higher level of finish than the average Chinese made IEC power cord and to most people it looks better, if this or some perceived audible benefit is worth five figures to someone who am I to judge their spending? High end watch movements have lots of obvious visible fine finishing so it is objectively discernible. Whether one appreciates it enough to pay for the extra attention to detail is a personal valuation, not some objective fact, no matter how many times you say it. If you accept your cable argument it seems it points to your $500 being overpriced by a couple of magnitudes. If you take looks and finish out of the equation then a $5 eBay or Walmart quartz watch does the job telling the time objectively BETTER than your $500 watch. Thus your watch is not much less offensive to the "fair price" sensibilities than is the Nordost power cable and probably right in line with their Heimdall Norse 2, a ~$500 product that does its objective job no better or worse than a $5 cable, oh wait that makes your $500 watch worse...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

gagnello said:


> The more everyone feeds the troll here, the more he will return to troll....
> 
> Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


When they gorge long enough they usually pop. Nothing funnier than troll guts on the screen.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> You mean something like Grand Seiko?;-)


This is referred to as "begging the question". I'm not sure we have conclusively established that Grand Seiko is directly comparable. The finishing and movements are indeed excellent, but the case design is much simpler, and that presumably requires less time consuming finishing to achieve, which results in a correspondingly lower price.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> As I said the power cord is a red herring.


No, it's not. Just imagine we are on an audiophile forum and a bunch of audiophiles are trying to convince you why the $10,000 price tag is perfectly fair, how much skilled work is required to manufacture such a cord and how they can not just see but hear its exquisite quality. Would you really believe them?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Lets say that the market price for a watch is 5x the production costs. That would also apply to a $500 watch as the same overheads apply, as does the same cost to retailers and the same taxes etc.
No?
Just because a watch is cheaper, it isn't magically exempt from taxes and having to be priced so that the retailers can make a profit on them.

* * *
I guess he also missed where I pointed out the very little price difference between a GS and its market rivals.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> No, it's not. Just imagine we are on an audiophile forum and a bunch of audiophiles are trying to convince you why the $10,000 price tag is perfectly fair, how much skilled work is required to manufacture such a cord and how they can not just see but hear its exquisite quality. Would you really believe them?


It doesn't matter, as I've tried to point out many times. If enough people are willing to pay that price, it's not overpriced; rather, it's brilliantly priced.

Cost of production is largely irrelevant in establishing market price.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Lets say that the market price for a watch is 5x the production costs.


The real issue here is that the market price for Grand Seiko (or SARB or Seiko 5) is perhaps really 5x the production costs, but for the Rolex or Patek or Lange it is 10x or 20x the production costs. Hence "overpriced" in my book.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> The real issue here is that the market price for Grand Seiko (or SARB) is perhaps really 5x the production costs, but for the Rolex or Patek or Lange it is 10x or 20x the production costs. Hence "overpriced" in my book.


And you base these numbers on what exactly?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> The real issue here is that the market price for Grand Seiko (or SARB or Seiko 5) is perhaps really 5x the production costs, but for the Rolex or Patek or Lange it is 10x or 20x the production costs. Hence "overpriced" in my book.


Apparently you're a slow learner. I give up.

I thank our lucky stars that you don't write economics texts.


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

124Spider said:


> There are few things in academic life quite as satisfying as using "QED" in a appropriate fashion, after successfully proving a very difficult theorem/proposition. But there are few things as annoying as someone using "QED" when it hasn't been earned.





TheWalrus said:


> Huh - sounds similar to my own track. Except replace Math with Philosophy (largely the philosophy of Science and deductive logic). And college with, well, post-college.





124Spider said:


> I did algebraic topology and differential geometry; what's your area?





mleok said:


> I'm a numerical analyst with a focus on problems that have a differential geometric flavor. This includes discrete analogues of differential forms, symplectic flows on nonlinear manifolds, and discretizations of gauge field theories.


I left a crummy high school with a 2.03 grade point average having never passed a math class...then joined the army. GED.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> No, it's not. Just imagine we are on an audiophile forum and a bunch of audiophiles are trying to convince you why the $10,000 price tag is perfectly fair, how much skilled work is required to manufacture such a cord and how they can not just see but hear its exquisite quality. Would you really believe them?


Yes it is.

Given one of my passions is building speakers I have listened to dozens of cabling options and my personal opinion is they make little if any difference inside the audible bandwidth. Power cords as long as they do not starve the amplifier and the rail voltage stays within tolerance I find they do not have any positive or negative effect for me. The place where cable construction does make an objective difference is HDMI particularly when the lengths are long.

Your cabling herring is based on an objective measure, the main issue we are focused on here are subjective issues. To put that into perspective if I wore power cables as jewelry like we wear watches then I probably would not wear the $2.99 at Monoprice Chinese built IEC cable I would wear a cable with more visual appeal with the commensurate price increase.

BTW I did edit to expand the post you quoted, so you may want to read the expansion.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Rdenney said:


> It would be hard to compare a Spring Drive with a traditional balance wheel movement. And I've never seen a Grand Seiko in the metal (which is why I didn't answer the original post). The pictures I've seen shown a nicely finished movement on a par with similiarly priced but lesser known (to the general public) Swiss watches (e.g. Zenith). But all the designs I've seen were rather heavy looking--they somehow missed how to make a watch seem _svelte, _which seems a design goal for the 60's design style they are recalling.
> 
> Rick "but that is purely subjective" Denney


The weird thing is, they used to be svelte. Another weird thing I've noticed is that my wife actually prefers the look of my fat watches. Maybe they're on to something along with Omega.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

mleok said:


> And you base these numbers on what exactly?


The very fact he used Rolex to make his point really shows how little he knows about the watch industry. Anyone that knows much at all about Rolex would not pretend to know ANYTHING about their production costs. That one post is the clearest example yet of the fact he is just pulling numbers out of his arse.

Even funnier when he talks about his numbers regarding Seiko it is merely a perhaps, but his numbers for Rolex, Patek and Lange are *IT IS. * It has become laughable.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

I was rubbish at maths.
That's why I draw pretty pictures for a living.

The thing is, I love maths and the history of it; things like the Babylonion methods using tables for quadratics.
Fantastic stuff.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

OK, so let's make a quick comparison. How much is Nautilus (steel, 5711)? $30,000?









And for comparison we can have Grand Seiko SBGR055 for how much - $5000?








And now try to explain 6x difference in price, preferably in terms of better quality.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so let's make a quick comparison. How much is Nautilus (steel, 5711)? $30,000?
> 
> And for comparison we can have Grand Seiko SBGR055 for how much - $5000?
> 
> And now try to explain 6x difference in price, preferably in terms of better quality.


The 6x difference in price is, uh, wait for it,

Because they can get it!!

What a concept!

Would you have PP charge less for their watches? Or would you have Seiko charge more? Or would you try to educate those wealthy people about how they're buying "overpriced" watches?

Gawd. It must be difficult to be so much smarter even than simple economic forces.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

124Spider said:


> The 6x difference in price is, uh, wait for it,
> 
> Because they can get it!!
> 
> ...


Nah, he's just changing his argument.
A while ago it was GS watches are 5x (i.e production = $1000) and Rolex is 10x (i.e production therefore = $500).
he must've realised what he was saying and how stupid that actually was.

Notice too how my mention of the same level of over-pricedness would exist across all watches in all price brackets to largely the same degree.
i.e even a $500 Seiko would be over-priced if you apply the same logic to it all
is quietly brushed aside.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> The 6x difference in price is, uh, wait for it,
> 
> Because they can get it!!


You really don't want to understand? 
I'm not asking why is the Nautilus more expensive, but if it is better than Grand Seiko (and if yes, how - more accurate, better polished ...?), and if its production costs are so much higher (and if yes, why exactly)?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so let's make a quick comparison. How much is Nautilus (steel, 5711)? $30,000?
> 
> And for comparison we can have Grand Seiko SBGR055 for how much - $5000?
> 
> And now try to explain 6x difference in price, preferably in terms of better quality.


For all you can see and feel in an internet picture you might as well have put up a picture of 1,000 $300 watches. About the only thing you can see there is design and maybe the increased complexity of finish on the PP in the case and bracelet. About the same amount of information one could objectively get from a picture of a Ferrari 458 and an Acura TL.

Let me ask what I think is a salient question have you ever held your $500 watch, a GS and a watch from the big three/GP/JLC at the same time, or even any combination of two?


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so let's make a quick comparison. How much is Nautilus (steel, 5711)? $30,000?
> 
> View attachment 1300355
> 
> ...


I'd estimate that the picture on top is at least 1/8 larger. That explains $625 to $3375 (USD) right there...depending on which price you choose to acknowledge.

I'll do what I tend to do in these kind of threads and ask you to put the shoe on the other foot (or the watch on the other wrist): You seem like a curious enough guy, could you please endeavor/attempt/try to list a few genuine reasons why the Patek might cost more than the Seiko? I'm not saying you'll come up with $25000 worth of reasons, but even if you don't necessarily agree with your findings take a bit of extra time to show folks that you comprehend their points of view. It's never a bad thing to think in a way you're not accustomed to thinking, plus it'll be fun!


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I was rubbish at maths.
> That's why I draw pretty pictures for a living.
> 
> The thing is, I love maths and the history of it; things like the Babylonion methods using tables for quadratics.
> Fantastic stuff.


I always figured people from the UK were better at math than people in the US, I mean you have multiples.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

I'd like to know how a $500 Seiko isn't over-priced.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> You really don't want to understand?
> I'm not asking why is the Nautilus more expensive, but if it is better than Grand Seiko (and if yes, how - more accurate, better polished ...?), and if its production costs are so much higher (and if yes, why exactly)?


It is better because it is perceived as better by enough people who are willing to pay $30,000 for it. For whatever combination of reasons they may have. Mostly the reasons are subtle (the law of diminishing returns applies very well at those levels); but a significant amount of it is the prestige the buyers perceive in the brand. Just like with Rolex at a different level.

Who cares if the production costs are higher? It's utterly, totally irrelevant. I can absolutely assure you that nobody who has seriously consider buying a PP has ever, even for a moment, wondered how much it cost to produce that item. Just like with Rolex at a different level.

Why are you so hung up on something as irrelevant (in the context of luxury goods) as production cost? If I found a nice hunk of gold in a creek, would it be "overpriced" if I sold it at market price?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> .I mean you have multiples.


..what I want to type here would be NSFW..


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> and if its production costs are so much higher (and if yes, why exactly)?


Can we agree that it is highly unlikely that anyone here knows the true production costs of any of these watches to a high enough degree of accuracy to use it within a reasoned debate?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> ..what I want to type here would be NSFW..


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> The real issue here is that the market price for Grand Seiko (or SARB or Seiko 5) is perhaps really 5x the production costs, but for the Rolex or Patek or Lange it is 10x or 20x the production costs. Hence "overpriced" in my book.


Why are you concerned about how many multiples of production costs a watch is priced at? By your previous arguments, you don't wish to pay extra for a slow carpenter, which suggests that you have a notion of intrinsic value which is independent of production costs.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I'd like to know how a $500 Seiko isn't over-priced.


It is by Okapi's definition.


----------



## H2KA (Apr 17, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so let's make a quick comparison. How much is Nautilus (steel, 5711)? $30,000?
> 
> And for comparison we can have Grand Seiko SBGR055 for how much - $5000?
> 
> And now try to explain 6x difference in price, preferably in terms of better quality.


GS movements while very nice are entirely machine finished as far as I know..

Here are some pics I took of my friend's Patek..




























With around 200 individual parts we can imagine the amount of labor needed to hand finished those tiny parts..

_For hundreds of years, the Swiss have been the acknowledged masters of the delicate craft of watchmaking and their skill lies primarily in their attention to detail. It is this attention to detail - what has been called artisinal integrity - that continues to preserve the traditions of watchmaking in Switzerland. _
_Of course, aesthetics is one of the main reasons why watchmakers can spend hours angling a single part, amongst hundreds, in a mechanical watch. Yet it must be remembered that most people won't understand what anglage, for example, is all about, and many of the parts that are tediously angled by hand will eventually be completely hidden beneath other parts. Thus, is there another reason, besides beauty, why in a top-notch mechanical watch, all parts are angled instead of leaving them sharp and rough? _
_Watchmakers present the following case - that the parts such as bridges and levers cannot have sharp corners because during the assembly of the hundreds of parts within a tiny working area, there is bound to be some contact, and even the steadiest of hands may cause the part being installed to touch another adjacent part causing scratches._
_These scratches are minute - as invisible to the naked eye as inclusions in diamonds - but artisinal integrity keeps watchmakers working hard to bring their work just a little closer to perfection. Thus, besides beauty, one practical reason why anglage is performed is that when a watchmaker installs a part, he or she minimises scratching done to other parts. Bear in mind that the parts we are discussing are tiny and as delicate as the gossamer wings of a dragonfly._

Finishing Touches:.A Case for Watch Movement Decoration - Page 1 | Luxury Insider - The Online Luxury Magazine


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ljb187 said:


> could you please endeavor/attempt/try to list a few genuine reasons why the Patek might cost more than the Seiko?


I know exactly why it is more expensive than Seiko. Because there are enough wealthy people in the world that are buying prestige or perhaps some of them even thinks that Nautilus is a better watch. But the point is - the production costs are not 6x higher (I seriously doubt they are 2x higher), and the quality is certainly not that much better, if it is better at all. So for me the Nautilus at 6x the price of the Grand Seiko is objectively overpriced (or whatever term you would like to apply for something like that).


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Who cares if the production costs are higher? It's utterly, totally irrelevant.


On top of that what if a company is much more efficient than another. The premise seems to be some arbitrary multiple of production costs equals a fair price. So the company that is slow and inefficient should be able to charge more and still be fair even if their product was inferior. I am not saying this has any direct corollary to the watches in question but it does support the fact his production costs based vale assessment is flawed.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

H2KA said:


> With around 200 individual parts we can imagine the amount of labor needed to hand finished those tiny parts..


So, what do you think - how much time?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I know exactly why it is more expensive than Seiko. Because there are enough wealthy people in the world that are buying prestige or perhaps some of them even thinks that Nautilus is a better watch. But the point is - the production costs are not 6x higher (I seriously doubt they are 2x higher), and the quality is certainly not that much better, if it is better at all. So for me the Nautilus at 6x the price of the Grand Seiko is objectively overpriced (or whatever term you would like to apply for something like that).


Wow; I can't resist....

You have not even the vaguest clue about the production costs (including, e.g., marketing) per unit of a PP. Or a GS. Or a Rolex. Or a Timex. Why do you pretend you do?

You have not even the vaguest clue about the differences between a typical $100 watch, a typical $500 watch, a typical $5000 watch, and a typical (if there is such a thing) $30,000 watch. Why do you argue, endlessly, about something you know absolutely nothing about?

The price of luxury goods is not a function of production costs; it is a function, entirely, of perceived value. That's a simple fact. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?

And, the best (worst?) part of that silly post: "for me the Nautilus at 6x the price of the Grand Seiko is objectively overpriced". Your utterly ignorant, utterly personal opinion has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an item is "objectively overpriced."


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> But the point is - the production costs are not 6x higher (I seriously doubt they are 2x higher), and the quality is certainly not that much better, if it is better at all. So for me the Nautilus at 6x the price of the Grand Seiko is objectively overpriced (or whatever term you would like to apply for something like that).


And you know this for fact? Source? Or is it just another data set that was pulled from your lower intestinal tract? Careful answering this is where credibility is won or...lost.

Further, would you mind answering my question about how many of these watches you are discussing have you actually held.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I know exactly why it is more expensive than Seiko. Because there are enough wealthy people in the world that are buying prestige or perhaps some of them even thinks that Nautilus is a better watch. But the point is - the production costs are not 6x higher (I seriously doubt they are 2x higher), and the quality is certainly not that much better, if it is better at all. So for me the Nautilus at 6x the price of the Grand Seiko is objectively overpriced (or whatever term you would like to apply for something like that).


Have you come even remotely close to explaining why you think that production costs are the only way of determining / ascribing value to something? I haven't seen it, yet you keep pounding away at this premise that absolutely no one else agrees with.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

H2KA said:


> GS movements while very nice are entirely machine finished as far as I know..
> 
> Here are some pics I took of my friend's Patek..
> 
> With around 200 individual parts we can imagine the amount of labor needed to hand finished those tiny parts..


I don't have a definitive reference for whether Grand Seiko movements are entirely machine finished, but according to this article,

Horolograph: Part 1/2: Review of Grand Seiko SBGM031: Background and technics

they do not have anglage on any of the components, which dramatically reduces the time necessary to finish the movement even if it was done by hand. There is a nice Grand Seiko video here, but it doesn't seem to show any hand finishing steps.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> It is by Okapi's definition.


Just so we're clear on that he overpaid for his Seiko Spirit when he could've just gotten a SNX.

He's the perfect Seiko customer.
I mean, it was him that said he wanted a GS even though it is also over-priced, right?

if you want to know how much work it is to polish hard metals, take a nail and anglage and polish the head to a mirror shine.
it can easily take me half a day to work a softer metal like aluminium to a mirror shine. Granted I'm not an expert but then I'm also not working on that sort of scale (size).


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> Have you come even remotely close to explaining why you think that production costs are the only way of determining / ascribing value to something? I haven't seen it, yet you keep pounding away at this premise that absolutely no one else agrees with.


The funny (haha) thing is that he rejects, as part of production costs, the cost of paying a lot of people to do fine work that doesn't show up much (especially to someone like him who has never seen one), and yet he pounds away at "production cost" as if it were somehow relevant to the actual fair market value of a luxury item.

Aggressive ignorance is an interesting phenomenon.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> And you know this for fact? Source?


The source is something called common sense and logic. And of course everything is only my opinion so I will leave you at your opinion that $30,000 is a fair price for a watch like Nautilus.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> The source is something called common sense and logic.


After all this evidence that you have neither?

ROTFLMAO!


----------



## H2KA (Apr 17, 2010)

mleok said:


> I don't have a definitive reference for whether Grand Seiko movements are entirely machine finished, but according to this article,
> 
> they do not have anglage on any of the components, which dramatically reduces the time necessary to finish the movement even if it was done by hand. There is a nice Grand Seiko video here, but it doesn't seem to show any hand finishing steps.


The spring drive movement (in GS) have anglage but as far as I know it is entirely machine finished too.. Some of the Credor line probably are hand finished but the prices are also much higher


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> The source is something called common sense and logic. And of course everything is only my opinion so I will leave you at your opinion that $30,000 is a fair price for a watch like Nautilus.


Just&#8230; just the entire post...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> ROTFLMAO!


The only funny thing around here is your conviction that a handful of finely polished or engraved cogs can be worth as much as a good car.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> The only funny thing around here is your conviction that a handful of finely polished or engraved cogs can be worth as much as a good car.


It's not my conviction; it's a fact. That's the price at which it sells, in sufficient quantity to keep being made. So, by definition (at least for those who have common sense and logic, of course) it's worth that.

Again, why are you arguing endlessly about something you know nothing about?

Have you ever held and examined a modern Grand Seiko? JLC? PP? Any $5000+ watch? Any $30,000 watch? Didn't think so, cuz if you had, you wouldn't be saying all those silly things.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> The source is something called common sense and logic. And of course everything is only my opinion so I will leave you at your opinion that $30,000 is a fair price for a watch like Nautilus.


So you admit its simply numbers pulled from you logical arse? Most learned people's common sense and logic would dictate that one can not use numbers to pontificate about a subject when the numbers have been made up out of whole cloth. You relied on numbers to make your point, you admitted the numbers are not based on any objective fact, therefore your point has no objectivity.

I never said the Nautilus was priced fairly, I haven't gone through the extensive research I would need to determine that, prior to purchase I did decide the price I paid for my Aquanaut was fair. I will say the 5712 is a sexy beast and I may just have to pay that "ridiculous" markup for one someday, I do love a moon phase and hand indicated date!


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I know exactly why it is more expensive than Seiko. Because there are enough wealthy people in the world that are buying prestige or perhaps some of them even thinks that Nautilus is a better watch. But the point is - the production costs are not 6x higher (I seriously doubt they are 2x higher), and the quality is certainly not that much better, if it is better at all. So for me the Nautilus at 6x the price of the Grand Seiko is objectively overpriced (or whatever term you would like to apply for something like that).


Oh, see...you didn't even try. The origin of your intentions or for the stance you're taking makes no difference to me personally, but I've got to believe you can do better than this...I genuinely mean that. What's the point of knowing only what you know? There's no challenge in that. If you've got other reasons for this approach then the smart folks will just move on and you'll have accomplished what in the end? Folks moving on because what you're doing has limited value? That wouldn't be a goal I'd set for my cat.


----------



## H2KA (Apr 17, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> So, what do you think - how much time?


92 hours 34 minutes and 43 seconds.. exactly..

LOL.. seriously any number that I put here, will you be able to confirm for sure if it's true or not?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

dammit.
I wanted to be post 500.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Were this a lot of other forums you would expect the cavalcade of "pwned" posts to begin right about now.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

Fairly priced n overpriced is very different...
As long as theres a buyer its not overpriced..fairly priced is subjective and futile.
I dont find a rolex overpriced.
I however find a poorly made cup of coffee over/poorly/unfairly priced whether theres high or low production costs. In fact even if its subjectively underpriced i would still find it unreasonable..


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> Were this a lot of other forums you would expect the cavalcade of "pwned" posts to begin right about now.


I kinda think that too, but appreciate the effort you guys put into this thread. I'd rather give it the old college try and then get "pwned" than be the sort of guy that "pwns" people on internet forums.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mikeylacroix said:


> As long as theres a buyer its not overpriced..


So can somebody tell me what is the correct English word for the price of a $1000 Invicta that has been purchased by some naive buyer?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> So can somebody tell me what is the correct English word for the price of a $1000 Invicta that has been purchased by some naive buyer?


Urban myth?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> So can somebody tell me what is the correct English word for the price of a $1000 Invicta that has been purchased by some naive buyer?


oh, you so funny.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> So can somebody tell me what is the correct English word for the price of a $1000 Invicta that has been purchased by some naive buyer?


To expand on what Mikey said - if a watch sells, generally, at their asking price - then it isn't overpriced. The average Invicata is not selling for $1000. I'm not even sure a person _could _buy an Invicta at it's MSRP.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> To expand on what Mikey said - if a watch sells, generally, at their asking price - then it isn't overpriced. The average Invicata is not selling for $1000. I'm not even sure a person _could _buy an Invicta at it's MSRP.


Now now, don't fall for it, he's just changing the subject of discussion like he did with Rolex.
Invicta isnt Rolex, let alone Patek.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> I'm not even sure a person _could _buy an Invicta at it's MSRP.


I was wondering that exact same thing, maybe at one of the Invicta boutiques?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

mleok said:


> I don't have a definitive reference for whether Grand Seiko movements are entirely machine finished, but according to this article,
> 
> Horolograph: Part 1/2: Review of Grand Seiko SBGM031: Background and technics
> 
> they do not have anglage on any of the components, which dramatically reduces the time necessary to finish the movement even if it was done by hand. There is a nice Grand Seiko video here, but it doesn't seem to show any hand finishing steps.


Here's another nugget that you may find interesting. Cheers!

http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&s...J504zYxdTfQywMm_Q&sig2=PTzvvJO9VtiACtRNxkjhCA

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

mleok said:


> I was wondering that exact same thing, maybe at one of the Invicta boutiques?


that sounds like a challenge!


----------



## Synequano (May 2, 2012)

For the price of GS,their quality is comparable to the higher end Swiss but minus the snob factor of the Swiss
Of all the watches I have handled,GS snowflake have that unforgettable dial and lightness yet still felt like an expensive piece of "art"


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> I don't believe that if you are slow you must therefore be good. Exactly as I don't believe that if you are expensive you must therefore be good. But here are obviously some that are convinced that if you are slow you automaticaly deserve to be paid more.


'

If you think that's what people have said, then you really are slow.

Rick "who recalls hinging the decision on quality" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> Well, Rick for example wrote: "If their watches really are no better than those in your list, then they must be paying people to just sit around and do nothing. *Somehow, I don't think that's what's happening. "
> *He obviously thinks that if the watch is more expensive, it must somehow be better (even if the difference is very subtle).


If you are going to quote me, do it correctly. I said nothing about the price of the watch in the statement you quoted. I said that watch companies that hire a lot of people with respect to the number of watches they make are probably not paying them to sit around doing nothing. And if they are doing something rather than nothing, that something must be adding value, at least in some measure. I did not claim that the value those people added to the product or its delivery was important to you.

Rick "who didn't even claim that it was important to me, in every case" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> No, he is saying that there is much more hand finishing AND because of that those watches must be better.


NO! I did _not_ say that those watches had more hand finishing. I said that those additional workers added value to the product or its delivery. The workers are a cost, and one presumes that watch company executives, especially if they are as profit-driven as you imply, would ruthlessly cut those costs if they did not increase value by a greater amount. (And the whole point of work is to create more value than cost, while the whole point of business is to create more revenue than cost. The two are related, but not always congruent.)

I then showed _examples_ of watches where that extra effort created _visible_ signs of quality. Those signs of quality are what drive higher prices in the market, especially prices paid by experts. It is true that people also pay for the reputation of companies that consistently produce such quality, but if those companies did not do so consistently, many experts (at least) would avoid them, despite their reputation.

I did NOT say that those watches were therefore "better". You sound like a child, where everything must be "good" or "bad". I said that such extra attention to detail means the watches have value to some buyers, who therefore pay prices they thing those watches are worth. Given that those buyers are often highly experienced experts, it is a bit hard to defend the claim that they are gullible fools, as you are attempting.

Rick "thinking Will Rogers had something to say about the advisability of continuing to dig when finding oneself at the bottom of a hole, which seems appropriate at the moment" Denney


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> *Rick* "who didn't even claim that *it was* *important to me*, in every case" Denney


YES U DID!!
(see what i did there  )


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so my English is not good - please tell me what is the correct English term for the price of those Nordost's $10,000 cables. Or for $1000 Invictas or Stuhrlings that you can regularly get with a 90% discount? It they are not overpriced - what are they?


For every product, the price people will pay is a declining function with respect to the number willing to pay that amount. The higher the price, the fewer will pay that amount. At the high-priced tail of that curve, there may be some who are driven by motivations not understood by you (or me). It is possible that they are fools, but we humans are quick to assign to foolishness any motivations we do not share. I cannot explain the motivations of someone wanting to pay $10K for a power cable (if that's what it really is--I didn't research it and so I, with some risk, am taking your word for it). Those motivations are not grounded (so to speak) in any understanding of electricity. (I am amused by the apparently wood block on the cable, when it should be a ferrite core choke to suppress reflected currents on the shield of the cable resulting from impedance mismatches. But then I am an extra-class amateur radio operator, an engineer, and a member of IEEE.) But I also know that some buy stuff like that as a display of wealth, and as an artistic expression--they want their system to look a particular way that they cannot achieve with a $5 power cord made of 16-gauge zip cord. That product does not have that value for me, but if there are ten people a year willing to pay it, and Nordost can only make ten of these cords a year, he'd be a fool to charge any less. I'm thinking I need to be in the power cord business, except that I don't have the money to invest in making the market for such products.

I feel the same about "Monster" cables, which one can buy routinely at Best Buy. But I do think that most of the cheapest line-level audio cables are quite poorly shielded and can pick up all manner of noise, so I avoid the cheapest products, too.

There was a camera maker of some repute (Littman) who took old Polaroid cameras, modified them to accept 4x5" sheet film (instead of Polaroid roll film which went off the market many decades ago), tarted them up with gold plating, jewels, and leather, and sold them for many thousands of dollars. They were advertised in rich-people magazines as being the things that Hollywood actresses bought as toys for their movie-star husbands (the ad I saw featured Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt). Competing products sell for about a thousand dollars or less, so experts are unwilling to pay what the bejeweled versions sell for. But the guy sold all he made to people buying into the mystique, and for them they were worth it, merely as expressions of art. I wouldn't pay that, but neither will I sit in judgment of those who do. Overpriced? Not if he sells at the price offered. Junk? Well, that's a whole other discussion, isn't it?

I'm not sure anybody ever spends MSRP on Invictas or Stuhrlings, because those watches are _never_ offered for sale undiscounted. Their suggested retail price is not a true price, it is merely a ruse. But I don't think many knowledgeable watch enthusiasts have been taken in, do you?

Rick "remebering that this is a forum of knowledgeable enthusiasts with good understanding of what they are buying and why" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

gagnello said:


> The more everyone feeds the troll here, the more he will return to troll....


Yes, but the trolls sometimes voice a common misconception that should be addressed, for the non-trolls who happen upon the discussion. Otherwise, the troll arguments become the record.

Rick "myth and lore about the difference between price and cost abound" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> No, it's not. Just imagine we are on an audiophile forum and a bunch of audiophiles are trying to convince you why the $10,000 price tag is perfectly fair, how much skilled work is required to manufacture such a cord and how they can not just see but hear its exquisite quality. Would you really believe them?


You are still confusing price and cost. It may be that _no_ audiophile--a knowledgable enthusiast--would buy such a cord.

But the watch equivalent to that cord is a simple three-hand watch with a plain, simply finished movement that is priced at about $250K. That's why it's a red herring. You didn't set a high limit with your initial assertion, you set a low limit of $500. You can't argue that anything over $500 is overpriced just because it's plausible that a $10,000 power cord is overpriced.

Rick "is an $10 power cord better than a $4 power cord, if it is shielded and choked against reflected currents, or if it is white and matches the wall paint rather than black, or if it is available when and where needed versus requiring delivery?" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

ljb187 said:


> GED.


Brilliant!

Rick "noting the difference between education and wit" Denney


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, so let's make a quick comparison. How much is Nautilus (steel, 5711)? $30,000?
> 
> View attachment 1300355
> 
> ...


Knowledgeable experts will tell you that the movement in the Patek is hand-finished and fitted, while the movement in the Seiko is series-produced (like Swiss watches at GS's price point). Patek also offers very high levels of personalized service to their customers.

Those experts will also tell you that the Nautilus has a particular style of design that makes a much bolder aesthetic statement than does the Grand Seiko. The Grand Seiko has broad appeal, and the Nautilus more limited appeal. But for those who appreciate that design and have the money, it makes a statement the Grand Seiko cannot.

Grand Seikos are styled for Japanese executives who live in a culture where fitting in has high value. Patek Nautiluses are styled for wealthy connoisseurs who desire to stand out.

Those aspects affect the cost (Gerald Genta gets a piece of the action every time a Nautilus sells, for example), but that is not the reason for the difference in price.

Also, do you know how many Nautiluses are sold each year versus how many Grand Seikos are sold each year? Patek prices their very limited production further out on the tail of the curve describing price and numbers of people willing to pay that price. These watches do not get discounted 90% on the Home Shopping Channel. And the people buying them are often experts.

Of course, both of these are just goofy comparisons from a person who said any watch over $500 is overpriced. Let's compare the Nautilus to my Seiko Black Monster, shall we?

Rick "pearls before swine, perhaps" Denney

(By the way, the Patek photograph is overenlarged and oversharpened, which blurs the fine detailing of such a watch. That detailing is hard to see even in a proper photograph, which this is not.)


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

All I know about the demand curve for Patek Philippe is that I put my name down on the wait list for a Patek Philippe Nautilus 5711/1A at a Patek AD in Zurich, and the wait is at least a year long.










The Patek Philippe 5119J which I have below also typically had a six month or longer wait list.


















I would like to see the wait list for Invictas at their full asking price.


----------



## BigChief (Jun 9, 2013)

I think where people go wrong with value is they focus only on the "value" of an item.....without relating it to an individual's personal "value" of currency (let's say the UD dollar). Most people buying a 50K patek have plenty of dollars, hence the value (to them) of each individual dollar is much less than some working stiff making 3k a month.

If say, the price of the GSeiko was 5 dollars, and the price of the PNautilus was 30 dollars...would anyone here actually factor in cost at all? Not really, because the value of that currency amount is very low to you. Hence, maybe you pick up the Nautilus for $30...and some guy who makes $1 a month thinks you were robbed...and argues that you should have gone with the $5 GS.

In summary, all transactions are still a form of barter, and you have to factor in individual "value" for both sides of the trade.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> Gerald Genta gets a piece of the action every time a Nautilus sells, for example


I suppose that would be his estate, he died a couple of years ago. I am a big fan of all his designs, at least now. When I was younger they didn't sing to me as much.

Back to the original topic the more I think about it the more I would love to see a full breakdown of a GS, a comparably priced Swiss dress watch and low end watches from the big three. But that is as likely to happen as an Invicta becoming a grail for me.


----------



## Mitch100 (Jul 3, 2007)

Rdenney said:


> I'm not sure anybody ever spends MSRP on Invictas or Stuhrlings, because those watches are _never_ offered for sale undiscounted. Their suggested retail price is not a true price, it is merely a ruse. But I don't think many knowledgeable watch enthusiasts have been taken in, do you?


Taken in?

Well suppose Invicta changed strategy and actually sold at MSRP and did not discount. No doubt they would deliver some marketing speak to justify the cost and they would sell watches. A heck of a lot less than they do now but they would sell.

We would then have purchasers coming on here to 'defend' their purchase and justify the cost and we would also have others coming on to say it is massively overpriced and not connected to production cost. Perhaps to say they have been 'taken in'.

Plenty on here say that the market rules and that if people are prepared to pay the cost then, per se, it must be worth it, notwithstanding its intrinsic value or production cost.

That can always be said looking at it only in the present. What people need to be careful about is if that will hold in the future. There are never-ending examples where that has not happened.

I am sure that, for instance, that many purchasers of tulip bulbs would have defended their purchase as being value for money and looked lovingly at their wonderfully expensive product. Doesn't look so good looking backwards though and would many people say now that they were true value as that was the market price at the time?

We have Bitcoins worth about $1200 currently up about a thousand times in less than five years. They have no intrinsic value and are backed by no bank or government but people have become convinced that they are value and presumably many people on here would agree, as that is the price people are prepared to pay today in the current market. Perhaps they are value and in five years will be worth a million each.

Certainly there were more Bitcoins traded yesterday than Patek, Lange, and Rolex's yearly combined total production of watches!

However, I always get nervous when the price of products move far away from production costs or any possible intrinsic value, the only thing holding the market up is a continuous increase in prices over inflation. Once this falters, with little intrinsic value, the price can come crashing down a heck of a lot faster than it went up, with nothing to stop it until it reaches a real, easily recognised, value. There is some price stop for watches as there will always be some demand as there is with say wine. Even tulip bulbs have a price stop based on demand. Not sure about Bitcoins though!

So yes, those who say today that the current market rules and that if people are prepared to pay the price then that is the true value could be said to be correct. Will people say that in the future looking back?

Mitch


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Reichenbach is a mushroom brand, sold at the moment on German Amazon for up to $2700! (and from time to time with 90% discount).








Reichenbach Automatikuhr schwarz: Amazon.de: Uhren

No doubt there are some naive buyers thinking this must be some good old German or Swiss brand. Perhaps one or two such buyers every month, or every year, it doesn't matter. What exactly is than a $2700 Reichabach? A fair priced watch, product of a clever marketing strategy? A real value for such a watch, based on a fact that a couple of watches were indeed sold? An overpriced watch, intended to be sold to naive buyers? An outright scam?

And what would be different if some watchmaker spent two months polishing the case of each $2700 Reichenbach and thus adding a "real value" to it? Would somehow a $10 Chinese watch magically become a "better" watch, based on two months of additional work by a watchmaker?

I'm not saying that Patek is like Reichenbach, but what is the real difference? Why is it OK to sell a Patek for $30.000 and not OK to sell a Reichenbach for $3000. Or is it perfectly OK to sell Reichenbach for $3000 and if there is even single one that buys it, and is happy with the purchase, everything is fine? Like everything is fine with a $10.000 audiophile power cord.

I should rephrase the question - why is OK to buy a $30.000 Patek and not OK to buy a $3000 Reichenbach? Or is it perfectly OK to buy a $3000 Reichenbach, if you have enough money and you like the watch?


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> Knowledgeable experts will tell you that the movement in the Patek is hand-finished and fitted, while the movement in the Seiko is series-produced (like Swiss watches at GS's price point). Patek also offers very high levels of personalized service to their customers.
> 
> Those experts will also tell you that the Nautilus has a particular style of design that makes a much bolder aesthetic statement than does the Grand Seiko. The Grand Seiko has broad appeal, and the Nautilus more limited appeal. But for those who appreciate that design and have the money, it makes a statement the Grand Seiko cannot.
> 
> ...


Frankly Rick, this post hardly qualifies as a pearl. You should really find out more about Grand Seiko first. Cheers!

Edit: I've included the link to an article which addresses some of the points raised in the last couple of posts for your reference. Cheers!
http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F11%2F26%2Ffashion%2F26iht-acawseiko.html&ei=HoOeUsHSEsrpkgXu24DwAw&usg=AFQjCNG0WwqVbyKUT1a7dvUxydR-pg9DBA&sig2=iWdYvFzWu1ZHHSLdIlBP3Q


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Correct link for the above mentioned article is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/fashion/26iht-acawseiko.html?_r=0


----------



## Bill Adler (Oct 4, 2013)

This is a great thread, insightful and helpfully provocative. I'm currently in Tokyo, and I'm tempted to pull out my credit card and buy a Grand Seiko. I've been thinking about getting one for a while, and this thread is coaxing me in that direction. If anyone has suggestions for where to shop for a Grand Seiko in Tokyo (I definitely don't mind if the store has good prices), let me know.

I'm struck by the purity of design, especially of the Snowflake watches. I can only imagine that the watch is real life is even more gorgeous than the pictures. Though the Sbgx009, a Grand Seiko without a date, looks stunning. 

I enjoy wearing a Rolex, but it would be a very different feel --and I'm not sure exactly how or why-- to wear a watch of this caliber (read: cost) that's not Swiss.


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

You should see if you can find a nice vintage GS while you're there.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Reichenbach is a mushroom brand, sold at the moment on German Amazon for up to $2700! (and from time to time with 90% discount).
> 
> View attachment 1301075
> 
> ...


Wow.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Bill Adler said:


> This is a great thread, insightful and helpfully provocative. I'm currently in Tokyo, and I'm tempted to pull out my credit card and buy a Grand Seiko. I've been thinking about getting one for a while, and this thread is coaxing me in that direction. If anyone has suggestions for where to shop for a Grand Seiko in Tokyo (I definitely don't mind if the store has good prices), let me know.


Lots of eye candy including their limited releases at Wako shop in the Ginza shopping belt. That's Seiko's flagship store and also has a wide selection of high end brand name watches, some of which are exclusive to Japan only. Look for Ms. Nana Ochiai. As suggested by iol, for vintage gs, you should try watch cti (many vintage Rolex there too) or Komehyo. No guarantees you'll be getting the best deals from these 2 but at least you'll not get fakes. Also, there is a 20 percent discount off retail for most regular GS but could be none at all for select limited release. Cheers!

Edit: btw on a personal note, if you do visit watch cti, please remember to snap some high quality pics of the sbgw021 on consignment there and post them up! And at Wako, the Shinji Hattori special too please. Cheers!


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I should rephrase the question - why is OK to buy a $30.000 Patek and not OK to buy a $3000 Reichenbach? Or is it perfectly OK to buy a $3000 Reichenbach, if you have enough money and you like the watch?


It's your money; buy what suits you. If that's a $30,000 PP, that's fine. If it's a $3000 Reichenbach, that's fine. If it's a $25 Timex, that's fine.

These are all luxuries; we pay what they're worth to us, given our taste, our amount of money that can comfortably be put to that, and a number of other things.

Different people spend thousands of dollars on a watch for a whole variety of different reasons. You (or I) may not agree with their reasons, but all that matters is that those buying the watches are happy with their purchase.

You can be sure that anyone buying a PP is very happy with the purchase, and doesn't spend any time wondering if he/she got "good value." Part of that is that $30,000 means something different to them than it probably does to you; part of that is for the fine craftsmanship that goes into such a watch (whether you acknowledge that or not); part of it is the aura/prestige/snob appeal. And there are other reasons, in all likelihood.

That's what determines the market value of such a luxury item; not the cost of production (and certainly not the Okapi seal of approval).


----------



## Bill Adler (Oct 4, 2013)

A vintage Grand Seiko is a great idea! それはいい考えである。ありがとう。 I was at a Tokyo watch store the day before yesterday, but alas they only had Zenith and Rado vintage watches. Pretty much all I know about Grand Seikos is what I've learned on this thread, so now I'll have to research vintage ones. If I'm lucky, the Japan market for Grand Seikos will skew toward the new ones, making vintage watches a relative bargain.



ImitationOfLife said:


> You should see if you can find a nice vintage GS while you're there.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> It's your money; buy what suits you. If that's a $30,000 PP, that's fine.* If it's a $3000 Reichenbach, that's fine.*


OK, that's exactly what I wanted to hear and all further discussion on that matter is obviously meaningless.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> OK, that's exactly what I wanted to hear and all further discussion on that matter is obviously meaningless.


A dispassionate observer might have come to the same conclusion something over 500 posts ago....


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

And on that note, the answer to the original question of this thread ("how does Grand Seiko compare to top tier brands mentioned in the topic title") is - it doesn't. One is a $5000 Grand Seiko and the other is a $30,000 Patek (or Lange or whatever). These are two completely different things that cannot be compared in any way (and it doesn't matter that some laymen both called them a watch).


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> And on that note, the answer to the original question of this thread ("how does Grand Seiko compare to top tier brands mentioned in the topic title") is - it doesn't. One is a $5000 Grand Seiko and the other is a $30.000 Patek (or Lange or whatever). These are two completely different things that cannot be compared in any way (and it doesn't matter that some both called them a watch).


Spoken like someone who has never owned either, or even examined either. Much less both. And who finds both to be "overpriced."


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

No, that's based on your claim that it's fine to buy a $3000 Reichenbach. If you don't understand why, try harder.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

lethaltoes said:


> Frankly Rick, this post hardly qualifies as a pearl. You should really find out more about Grand Seiko first. Cheers!
> 
> Edit: I've included the link to an article which addresses some of the points raised in the last couple of posts for your reference. Cheers!
> http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&s...1a7dvUxydR-pg9DBA&sig2=iWdYvFzWu1ZHHSLdIlBP3Q





Okapi001 said:


> Correct link for the above mentioned article is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/fashion/26iht-acawseiko.html?_r=0


That reads like an advertisement for GS, and does not prove your point in any way. The article fails to name a single Swiss brand that is inferior to GS, knowing that there is no way they can substantiate the claim.

Ace 'Every item sold has a price calculated to acheive what the business deems will help it acheive the required profit to grow the business' McLoud


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> No, that's based on your claim that it's fine to buy a $3000 Reichenbach. If you don't understand why, try harder.


You should try reading what I wrote. I know that's not your strength, but give it a shot. Cuz quoting half of what I said isn't the same thing as quoting all of what I said. And my response was made in reliance on your statement that the Reichenbach sells for $3000; it's not a brand I've ever heard of (so if it doesn't sell for $3000, that's on you).

Sheesh; you're a remarkable troll. Bye-bye.


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> That reads like an advertisement for GS, and does not prove your point in any way. The article fails to name a single Swiss brand that is inferior to GS, knowing that there is no way they can substantiate the claim.
> 
> Ace 'Every item sold has a price calculated to acheive what the business deems will help it acheive the required profit to grow the business' McLoud


I do wish sometimes GS marketing is better articulated as such. I referenced this piece as Rick cites "expert" opinion. Please look up Dr. Bernard Cheong's collection and credentials on the web and let me know if he qualifies as an expert.


----------



## Lexus050470 (Sep 10, 2012)

GS



































JLC


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Bill Adler said:


> A vintage Grand Seiko is a great idea! それはいい考えである。ありがとう。 I was at a Tokyo watch store the day before yesterday, but alas they only had Zenith and Rado vintage watches. Pretty much all I know about Grand Seikos is what I've learned on this thread, so now I'll have to research vintage ones. If I'm lucky, the Japan market for Grand Seikos will skew toward the new ones, making vintage watches a relative bargain.


There is a few vintage GS and King Seiko blogs out there that are must reads befor you go shopping:

http://www.roachman.com/private.html
http://vintagewatchforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=23828
http://www.grand-seiko.com/features/history.html


----------



## fjblair (Apr 24, 2009)

Ace McLoud said:


> That reads like an advertisement for GS, and does not prove your point in any way. The article fails to name a single Swiss brand that is inferior to GS, knowing that there is no way they can substantiate the claim.
> 
> Ace 'Every item sold has a price calculated to acheive what the business deems will help it acheive the required profit to grow the business' McLoud


I have no argument either way but we all know that there are most certainly Swiss brands that are "inferior" to Grand Seiko.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

lethaltoes said:


> I do wish sometimes GS marketing is better articulated as such. I referenced this piece as Rick cites "expert" opinion. Please look up Dr. Bernard Cheong's collection and credentials on the web and let me know if he qualifies as an expert.


I don't recall citing any expert opinion claiming that Grand Seiko is anything but a very fine watch.

The notion that its design is aimed at upmarket Japanese customers is obvious--that's where most of them are sold. They weren't even marketed much outside Japan until recently.

The notion that Japanese culture favors uniformity, conservative styling, and "fitting in" is my own observation, made with my own eyes. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

The notion that the watch is styled consistently with the above two notions is plain to see. I like the style--never said I didn't. I would prefer the GS style to a Nautilus.

The notion that the Nautilus is not aimed at such buyer characteristics also seems plain.

I was arguing with a guy who thinks any watch over $500 is overpriced. The experts I referred to are the knowledgeable enthusiasts of this forum, many of whom revere Grand Seiko watches and claim them to be very inexpensive for what they are. I take their word for it, though those who have compared them with similarly priced Swiss watches have found them to be competitive.

Everything else I commented on is based on pictures in this thread. I've never seen a Grand Seiko in person, and since I don't buy expensive watches often or sight unseen, and since Seiko still doesn't market GS much here, I may never get the chance.

I don't believe I've made any claims about Grand Seiko otherwise.

Rick "arguments are down the hall" Denney


----------



## Au Hasard Balthazar (Feb 18, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> Knowledgeable experts will tell you that the movement in the Patek is hand-finished and fitted, while the movement in the Seiko is series-produced (like Swiss watches at GS's price point). Patek also offers very high levels of personalized service to their customers.
> 
> Those experts will also tell you that the Nautilus has a particular style of design that makes a much bolder aesthetic statement than does the Grand Seiko. The Grand Seiko has broad appeal, and the Nautilus more limited appeal. But for those who appreciate that design and have the money, it makes a statement the Grand Seiko cannot.
> 
> ...


Based on Grand Seiko's own website, they state that "each watch is hand assembled, adjusted and finished" and I have not read nor heard anything that would contradict that. I am not sure of the level and perhaps it is less than the most expensive luxury bands, though they are not purely mass produced given the lower production numbers. Also Patek does produce on the order of 50,000 watches a year which is significantly more than the other mainstream high end brands such as ALS, GO, Breguet, VC, and AP.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> I was arguing with a guy who thinks any watch over $500 is overpriced.


I never said that and you are free to find a quote that would prove otherwise. And even if I would said something along those lines, I would most certainly add that some are (much) more overpriced than the others. Patek is at least 2-times more overpriced than is Grand Seiko;-)

Grand Seikos in fact, and IMHO, represent quite a "problem" for high-end Swiss and German brands (or, more precisely, for fans of those brands), namely - how come that such an exquisite watch can costs "only" $5000. And than they start to dream up all sorts of reasons for why a Patek is in fact forth every one of those 30,000 or 50,000 or whatever dollars.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I never said that and you are free to find a quote that would prove otherwise. And even if I would said something along those lines, I would most certainly add that some are (much) more overpriced than the others. Patek is at least 2-times more overpriced than is Grand Seiko;-)
> 
> Grand Seikos in fact, and IMHO, represent quite a "problem" for high-end Swiss and German brands (or, more precisely, for fans of those brands), namely - how come that such an exquisite watch can costs "only" $5000. And than they start to dream up all sorts of reasons for why a Patek is in fact forth every one of those 30,000 or 50,000 or whatever dollars.


How does GS represent 'quite a problem' for high end Swiss and German brands? The latter sell every watch they make - often with extend waiting lists attached.

_Once again_ you make these broad based assumptions that the only things that count are what you think count. Clearly this is not the case. You make you argument that GS present some sort of 'problem' to the Swiss and German high end brands, but you do so to the exclusion of obvious evidence (namely that high end swiss and german watches are in high demand at their price point).

The other question I have is this - why are you still arguing this point? Isn't it clear that, even if you profoundly believe in your own argument, that you are swaying no one here to your side?


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Au Hasard Balthazar said:


> Based on Grand Seiko's own website, they state that "each watch is hand assembled, adjusted and finished" and I have not read nor heard anything that would contradict that. I am not sure of the level and perhaps it is less than the most expensive luxury bands, though they are not purely mass produced given the lower production numbers. Also Patek does produce on the order of 50,000 watches a year which is significantly more than the other mainstream high end brands such as ALS, GO, Breguet, VC, and AP.


I doubt there is a brand made at the Grand Seiko price point and above that are not "hand-assembled, adjusted, and finished."

But I haven't seen a picture of a GS movement yet with hand-polished anglage on the bridges, such as shown on the close ups of the Patek movement up-thread, or that can be seen on any ALS movement. Just to name one example of the sorts of finish details common to the big three (or four).

If I just say that much, I get pistols-at-dawn reactions, as if it's just illegal to state that a $30,000 Patek might have more hand-finishing on the movement than a $6000 Grand Seiko. Please, enough already! Show proper pictures of the movement if you want argue further. I can see that kind if finishing for myself. I've shown mine, now you show yours.

Rick "fed up" Denney


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Reichenbach is a mushroom brand, sold at the moment on German Amazon for up to $2700! (and from time to time with 90% discount).
> 
> View attachment 1301075
> 
> ...


1) You already know the answers to your questions I quoted above, don't you?

2)The oddest thing is that for someone who is so sure about the relative value of manufactured goods, you seem to have no idea how little currency your own posts hold this thread. I'm all for being contrary and goodness knows WUS needs a dose of that from time to time but, like the quote more or less says, "If you're going to wear the white suit, you sorta have to be able to pull it off."

3) Your opinion of people who would normally be considered competent is either abnormally low or you have no idea how the world (or arguing a point for that matter) works...Perhaps you just like doing this sort of thing. I'd encourage you to realize that none of these choices/affectations/afflictions are going to serve you all that well in fairly grown up places like WUS.

4) Think of your WUS posts in terms of watches:


They can be like the cheap Chinese watches available on eBay: Blunt instruments that barely get the job done and tend to be discarded by their frustrated owners sooner rather than later. Like the Reichenbach you found such objects have a limited value that's apparent to nearly everybody who sees or handles them. 
Watches could become a genuine hobby for you...maybe even something of a passion. Your posts would be effective, persuasive and perhaps with a fair amount of diligence even surprising and elegant. Sure you wouldn't have the time to spend 20, 30 or even 40 hours honing and crafting single thoughts like a poet or playwright might, but 15 minutes here and 30 minutes there will start to add up. Over time your threads will reflect the skill of a truly devoted craftsman..maybe even an artisan if that's what you aspire to. People would appreciate and even admire what you write because the quality of your effort will be obvious - much like the sort of watches that everybody from Hamilton all the way up to Rolex and Grand Seiko offer. 
If you really work at this, if you spend those thousands of hours, if you dedicate the better part of your life developing a sublime level of expertise not only in horology but prose as well and _if _you also have the aptitude and posses unique talent and vision then maybe - if you get enough lucky breaks along the way - your threads would be the rarest of the rare. They'd practically be art. This sort of almost impossible to duplicate level of achievement would cause you to be referred to around here as "the Patek Phillipe of posters".


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

Wow 56 pages in one week (I can't read through all that!)

Could anyone point me to a post where someone that owns both a Grand Seiko and one of the Holy Trinity, Breguet, ALS or JLC offer an opinion? They are the ones that I would really like to hear from.

PS - I've never held a Grand Seiko so i have no idea how good they are or are not.


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

GETS said:


> Wow 56 pages in one week (I can't read through all that!)
> 
> Could anyone point me to a post where someone that owns both a Grand Seiko and one of the Holy Trinity, Breguet, ALS or JLC offer an opinion? They are the ones that I would really like to hear from.
> 
> PS - I've never held a Grand Seiko so i have no idea how good they are or are not.


I think you've got to go to the high end forum for that and I'm pretty sure they don't do this sort of thing there.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I never said that and you are free to find a quote that would prove otherwise. And even if I would said something along those lines, I would most certainly add that some are (much) more overpriced than the others. Patek is at least 2-times more overpriced than is Grand Seiko;-)
> 
> Grand Seikos in fact, and IMHO, represent quite a "problem" for high-end Swiss and German brands (or, more precisely, for fans of those brands), namely - how come that such an exquisite watch can costs "only" $5000. And than they start to dream up all sorts of reasons for why a Patek is in fact forth every one of those 30,000 or 50,000 or whatever dollars.


Everyone certainly has a right to their opinion but it is also fair for them to illustrate their frame of reference. I have ask before and assume either the rapid growth of the thread at the time allowed the question to miss you or you purposefully avoided it. What Pateks, or other watches from the big three and what GS watches have you examined in the metal?

The second half of your post is more a dream than reality. For GS to be a real problem to the upper tier Swiss brands they will have to change in several fundamental ways, whether they do or not is up to them. I do however have no idea how it would ever be a problem for me as a "fan" of Patek for instance. Grand Seiko's current designs do nothing for me, if they were somehow twice as "good" and half the price I still wouldn't buy one. If they change their designs significantly and I become enchanted I would use the extraordinary resell value of my pieces to buy Grand Seikos instead.

In the end I hope Seiko does make inroads into the high end Swiss market, competition is almost always good for the consumer, that being me. It reminds me of a car analogy. The year was 1990 and Honda introduced their NSX aimed squarely at the Ferrari 348 (which was arguably the worst 8 cylinder MERD Ferrari had produced) the NSX was cheaper and by most rulers better than the 348. Ferrari responded and reinvigorated their 8 cylinder cars and now has the 458 Italia one of the best "budget supercars" ever built with ridiculously long waiting lists just for the privilege of in many cases paying over retail. Honda responded by...hmm I think 2015 is the current Honda plan to debut a second NSX. I don't think Seiko would be Honda in the second half of the story but I do think the Swiss would respond as Ferrari did, again no matter how it plays out the consumer wins.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Seiko do make watches at the Patek/Audemars/Vacheron/Jaeger et al segment; they're called Credor watches.

Seiko has watches in each of the market segments and they are priced appropriately.


I'm still waiting on the answer to why he bought a Seiko Alpinist that costs four/five times more than a Seiko 5.


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

Every morning this week I've read through the 10 new pages that this thread has spouted.
And to be honest, I have not learnt much.
I reckon if someone was to post an epic single post about the topic then that would cover the entire 56 pages.
However, I don't think that would be possible as this thread has created possibly the most opinionated defenses I've ever seen for anything.

The only benefit garnered from this thread is my interest in GS has been raised and I will do more research into them.
However, I haven't seen anything in this thread to suggest that they make better watches than JLC.


----------



## kormaking (Jun 10, 2010)

GETS said:


> Wow 56 pages in one week (I can't read through all that!)
> 
> Could anyone point me to a post where someone that owns both a Grand Seiko and one of the Holy Trinity, Breguet, ALS or JLC offer an opinion? They are the ones that I would really like to hear from.
> 
> PS - I've never held a Grand Seiko so i have no idea how good they are or are not.


I'm fortunate enough having to owned brands related to this discussion. For sure they are not at the same level but I must admit that GS produce one of the best hands and hour marker in the market. The way they polish the hands is so different and really suit the faceted hand style. Those hands are literally a glass mirror at certain angle of lighting and the blue second hand is so impressive as well. They even do the mirror polishing at the rehaut part. Sometime I wish the Swiss would try to make their hands the way GS did. 
While GS is focusing more on the dial side, the Swiss doesn't use the same approach. Both Patek and JLC feel so subtle, understated and modest on the dial side but on the other hand they shown their mastery underneath the dial. Their overall design and construction of the watch itself is quite impressive as well. Even the entry level Nautilus 5711 is so thin, light and very comfortable for a watch with 120m water resistance not to mention the movement that will make you amaze every time you see it with a loupe glass. I guess all are great watches for their price range.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> the NSX was cheaper and by most rulers better than the 348.


Was the NSX 1/6 of the Ferrari price? Because this is the real problem here, regarding something being "overpriced". Try to imagine what would really happen if some Japanese car with comparable performances (top speed, acceleration ...) to Porshe or Ferrari, but for 10% of a price, would come to the market. For $20,000 instead of $200,000. How many buyers would still buy Ferrari, because it's leather is stitched by hand and rear mirror hand polished?


----------



## Bill Adler (Oct 4, 2013)

I was in a watch store in Shinjuku this evening (a 5 story watch store!), and snapped some photos of the Grand Seikos that they have for sale. I've posted those photos in the Seiko and Citizen forum for anyone who want to see.



lethaltoes said:


> Lots of eye candy including their limited releases at Wako shop in the Ginza shopping belt. That's Seiko's flagship store and also has a wide selection of high end brand name watches, some of which are exclusive to Japan only. Look for Ms. Nana Ochiai. As suggested by iol, for vintage gs, you should try watch cti (many vintage Rolex there too) or Komehyo. No guarantees you'll be getting the best deals from these 2 but at least you'll not get fakes. Also, there is a 20 percent discount off retail for most regular GS but could be none at all for select limited release. Cheers!
> 
> Edit: btw on a personal note, if you do visit watch cti, please remember to snap some high quality pics of the sbgw021 on consignment there and post them up! And at Wako, the Shinji Hattori special too please. Cheers!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I'm still waiting on the answer to why he bought a Seiko Alpinist that costs four/five times more than a Seiko 5.


There were several good reasons;-) For starters, SARB017 is for me one of the most beautiful watches, regardles of price. I just love that old-skool "Indiana Jones" adventure style. For some incredible stroke of luck, it was some designer at Seiko to come up with that design, not at Patek or Rolex.
It's also technicaly better than Seikos 5 - better movement that hand winds and hacks, sapphire crystal, 200 m WR. All usefull improvements. And on top of that I bought it in Japan, with a decent discount, for $380 (+ a couple of free leather straps). I don't think I could get a watch with comparable specifications (not to mention design) for much less - so in my book, that is a reasonable price. I have no doubt that Seiko (and retailer) made a decent profit, but I never said that there is something wrong with that.
The movement - 6R15 - is not the best movement in the world, but I'm quite happy with the accuracy (it's too early to say anything about reliability). Here is on my timegrapher.








The story has a second part;-) There is one watch with comparable characteristics (sapphire, 200 m WR ...) and a decent design, the Sea-Gull's homage to Aqua Terra, for about $150 (including postage and VAT). Based on that price alone one could argue that Seiko is indeed somewhat "overpriced", but even if it is, it's not by much, so no big problem there. And the 6R15 in the Seiko is better than ST16 in the Sea-Gull, so that alone can justify the difference. On top of that the "market price" for the Sea-Gull is supposed to be $388 (as indicated on the store's webpage), so just about the same as Alpinist - and the world order is sort of restored

So based on the price (and quality) of the Alpinist, its direct competitors (I bought the Sea-Gull too) and on the quality of ultra cheap $20 Fineat's homage to Aqua Terra that I also have, I can quite objectively claim that $380 for the Alpinist, although it costs $250 or $300 more than Seiko 5, is indeed a fair price.

I'm wondering if someone can make similar objectively argumented claim for the Nautilus in comparison to Grand Seiko and a difference of $25,000.;-)


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Rdenney said:


> I was arguing with a guy who thinks any watch over $500 is overpriced.





Okapi001 said:


> I never said that and you are free to find a quote that would prove otherwise. And even if I would said something along those lines, I would most certainly add that some are (much) more overpriced than the others. Patek is at least 2-times more overpriced than is Grand Seiko;-)





Okapi001 said:


> Of course you wouldn't - because you know it's $500. And I wouldn't buy any Swiss made watch for $1000, because I'm convinced that not a single one is worth more than $500. So I bought Alpinist for $380, because I think it is worth $380 (and I could probably be able to sell it for $400;-) here in EU)


Troll


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Was the NSX 1/6 of the Ferrari price? Because this is the real problem here, regarding something being "overpriced". Try to imagine what would really happen if some Japanese car with comparable performances (top speed, acceleration ...) to Porshe or Ferrari, but for 10% of a price, would come to the market. For $20,000 instead of $200,000. How many buyers would still buy Ferrari, because it's leather is stitched by hand and rear mirror hand polished?


Ok if we're doing car analogies.
Let's be realistic and talk of something that was roughly 6 times the price.

The NSX was fantastic, the mclaren F1 is out of this world.
The F1 had a sticker price of 600,000 at that time which is approximately 6 times the price if not more than the new NSX.

And it is still heralded as being one of the best cars ever made if not the greatest supercar ever made.
Now you'd be lucky to get one for under $5,000,000.

The fact that NSX's are being modified now sort of shows how far apart these two cars are.

P.S. Your post is severely unrealistic, how can a $20,000 car ever compete with a $200,000 car except in being used as a form of transport?
If we go by that analogy then what you're saying is that they're both watches.

Personally I haven't handled enough high end pieces to give a proper comparison, but as a car nut I felt that needed explaining.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Troll


You have some troubles with reading? Swiss watch for $1000 != any watch over $500.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

faiz said:


> P.S. Your post is severely unrealistic, how can a $20,000 car ever compete with a $200,000 car except in being used as a form of transport?
> If we go by that analogy then what you're saying is that they're both watches..


Exactly. Everybody understands that the price difference between two cars with comparable characteristics (not just any two cars - but two sport cars, or 2 SUVs ) cannot be 10x or even more. Or, in case it is, the more expensive is obviously "overpriced" by any reasonable standard. Same goes for washing machins, power tools, TVs, computers, mobile phones ... Why not for watches?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Was the NSX 1/6 of the Ferrari price? Because this is the real problem here, regarding something being "overpriced". Try to imagine what would really happen if some Japanese car with comparable performances (top speed, acceleration ...) to Porshe or Ferrari, but for 10% of a price, would come to the market. For $20,000 instead of $200,000. How many buyers would still buy Ferrari, because it's leather is stitched by hand and rear mirror hand polished?


This response shows you have read one of my posts that clearly ask you to illustrate your point of reference. Since you continue to avoid the issue of which of the watches in question you have actually handled I think it is becoming clear your only interaction with any of these watches is merely internet based. Though it does not result in your opinion being invalid it does place it in the proper perspective.

As for the Ferrari issue, one could easily make an argument that there have been Japanese cars offered for sale that are loosely comparable in performance for 1/6th of the price and equal or better in most objective performance standards with the addition of a little money, say to the 1/5 area. What did this do to the wait lists for Ferrari's, nothing, if anything they have increased in that time. This is because in many areas the cheaper car was a significant compromise to the Ferrari, the cheaper car is meeting one set of criteria and has to forget the rest of them, since if not the price gap would compress significantly. The question about 1/10th the price I feel is essentially useless since no manufacturer is even remotely in the ball park at $25,000 and pretty much unlikely to be. The thing you have to understand is when you start undercutting price by large margins on established state of the art goods you can match some levels of quality and objective testing but to match them all you aren't going to do it for 1/10th the price, you are going to have to make some significant compromises. People just don't buy Ferraris because of the hand stitched leather.

In the end maybe it is just other people have more discerning palates than you. Nothing wrong with that, I used to be that way with beer and scotch, that has changed significantly in the last 5 years or so. There are plenty of things I have no desire to spend more than Walmart prices for, but there is nothing that fits that bill with my hobbies and passions.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> In the end maybe it is just other people have more discerning palates than you. Nothing wrong with that, I used to be that way with beer and scotch, that has changed significantly in the last 5 years or so. There are plenty of things I have no desire to spend more than Walmart prices for, but there is nothing that fits that bill with my hobbies and passions.


Did you mention scotch?
Alpinist and my most expensive scotch.







$680 on ebay.
PORT ELLEN - PART DES ANGES - 24 YEARS 52,5% | eBay
Which is of course overpriced;-) - I managed to get 2 bottles for $550. And even $275 for a bottle of a scotch is of course a lot, but it's only about 10x more than the cheapest single malt available. And this is in fact collector's whisky, from a closed distillery (and not just any closed distillery, but probably the best of all closed distilleries, Port Ellen), so you really cannot compare its price with "ordinary" single malt, regardless of quality. 16y Highland Park as one of the best single malts is only 3-4x more expensive than the cheapest single malt available.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

yeah but compared to say a SNX121, the Alpinist us overpriced and it looks better.

Let's face it, the 6r15 is a 7s26 with hacking and handwind; not a brand new movement. It consists of maybe 8 extra bits of metal and a little bit of extra machining on the main plate. At most it would cost Seiko an extra $10 to make.

The sapphire crystal is nice and all but is mostly markering. That Omega my dad for over 30 years is still perfectly fine. It has a few scratches that can't be easily polished out but then it's had a hard life. Besides, considering how many Seiko watches are made uing that movement and same dial size
i.e uses the same crystal, it cant cost Seiko more than an extra $15 to make one.

200m water resistance is another bit of clever marketing. Unless you go diving you will never need more than 50m. Besides, much of the extra water resistance is down to having a screw down crown that is just at most a $2 bit of metal.

Basically, the Alpinist should only be a $100 watch at most . I mean if you take that they have to make the usual bit of profit on a Seiko 5 so a $70 watch is only maybe $40 to the retailer, that means the Alpinist is really closer to being $60-70. You've been had mate.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Was the NSX 1/6 of the Ferrari price? Because this is the real problem here, regarding something being "overpriced". Try to imagine what would really happen if some Japanese car with comparable performances (top speed, acceleration ...) to Porshe or Ferrari, but for 10% of a price, would come to the market. For $20,000 instead of $200,000. How many buyers would still buy Ferrari, because it's leather is stitched by hand and rear mirror hand polished?


Where did you get the 10% number from? Because aside from that, there have consistently been cars that have outperformed or equaled the performance of a Ferrari for a fraction of it's cost. They're called Corvettes. And Jaguars. And Cobras. And, yes, NSXs. And Supra Turbos. Fact is that all of these cars have met Ferrari head to head in performance, and non of these cars has reduced the desirability or price of the Ferrari.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> You have some troubles with reading? Swiss watch for $1000 != any watch over $500.


Try reading your own post, Troll, which actually says, "_I wouldn't buy any Swiss made watch for $1000, because I'm convinced that not a single one is worth more than $500."

_While it's obviously dangerous to ascribe rational thought processes to your tortured "reasoning" regarding watches, a rational person would realize that saying that no Swiss watch is worth more than $500 (which you did say) is tantamount to saying that no watch is worth more than $500.

Troll.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Let's face it, the 6r15 is a 7s26 with hacking and handwind; not a brand new movement. It consists of maybe 8 extra bits of metal and a little bit of extra machining on the main plate. At most it would cost Seiko an extra $10 to make.
> 
> The sapphire crystal is nice and all but is mostly markering. That Omega my dad for over 30 years is still perfectly fine. It has a few scratches that can't be easily polished out but then it's had a hard life. Besides, considering how many Seiko watches are made uing that movement and same dial size
> i.e uses the same crystal, it cant cost Seiko more than an extra $15 to make one.
> ...


You might be right, but in that case I've been had for only $300 or so, not for $3000 or $30,000. And that's a big difference.

But most importantly, I couldn't find a better deal for a watch with performances, similar to what I wanted to have, so I have to live with that or forget the watch. This also means that if there is a free market and competition, it is not possible to make such a watch for much less, regardles of your arguments.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

but you still overpaid for the watch by four times what it costs.

yeah sorry mate, you fell for the Seiko marketing.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> Where did you get the 10% number from?


From the difference between Grand Seiko and Patek. Or Alpinist and Aqua Terra. In fact difference between watches with similar performance can be even much higher than 10x.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> While it's obviously dangerous to ascribe rational thought processes to your tortured "reasoning" regarding watches, a rational person would realize that saying that no Swiss watch is worth more than $500 (which you did say) is tantamount to saying that no watch is worth more than $500.
> 
> Troll.


I should ignore uncivilised posters who don't know better than to insult others, but just to be clear - I said that no Swiss watch that costs $1000 is worth more than $500. Meaning it's (at least) 2x overpriced or overvalued or whatever you want to call that. Following that analogy a Swiss watch that costs $10,000 is worth $5000 at the most.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> Where did you get the 10% number from? Because aside from that, there have consistently been cars that have outperformed or equaled the performance of a Ferrari for a fraction of it's cost. They're called Corvettes. And Jaguars. And Cobras. And, yes, NSXs. And Supra Turbos. Fact is that all of these cars have met Ferrari head to head in performance, and non of these cars has reduced the desirability or price of the Ferrari.


Yes, and most of the owners of Corvettes and Jaguars and Cobras and NSXs ... will tell you that Ferraris are ovepriced. Just ask them, if you don't believe me. And some of them will also tell you that owners of Ferraris are poseurs, snobs or just rich people that don't know nothing about sport cars.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I should ignore uncivilised posters who don't know better than to insult others, but just to be clear - I said that no Swiss watch that costs $1000 is worth more than $500. Meaning it's (at least) 2x overpriced or overvalued or whatever you want to call that. Following that analogy a Swiss watch that costs $10,000 is worth $5000 at the most.


What you said is what I quoted, which is that you wouldn't pay $1000 for any Swiss watch, because you think that no Swiss watch is worth $500. What you said in this post is different. It may be what you meant to say the first time; it is not what you said the first time.

But you go on about your odd way of looking at the world, where all expensive watches are "overpriced," but in which very expensive Scotch, which you will consume, is not overpriced.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> But you go on about your odd way of looking at the world, where all expensive watches are "overpriced," but in which very expensive Scotch, which you will consume, is not overpriced.


An item is overpriced when you can buy a comparable competitor for much less (if there is a free market and competition exists). You cannot buy a 24y single malt from one of the closed distilleries for much less than $200. In that case $275 for Port Ellen is expensive, but more or less fair and reasonable price. $1000 or $2000 would be overpriced. I already said that the $680 offer on ebay is overpriced.

And a $5000 Grand Seiko with Spring Drive is not overpriced. It is expensive, but you cannot get a watch with comparable performance and characteristics for much less.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, and most of the owners of Corvettes and Jaguars and Cobras and NSXs ... will tell you that Ferraris are ovepriced. Just ask them, if you don't believe me. And some of them will also tell you that owners of Ferraris are poseurs, snobs or just rich people that don't know nothing about sport cars.


So, by your logic, because a couple of people believe a Ferrari is overpriced, that, somehow makes Ferraris overpriced? Ferrari sells every car they make. There are waiting lists. They limit who can buy them. They can and do refuse to sell some models to people who have money and are willing to spend it. They do everything, in short, to reduce how many cars they sell - and yet they are still abundantly successful, selling every car for whatever they ask. They provide a fantastic product that is in high demand, and they price it according to what the market will bear. How is that overpriced?

What's with your second sentence? It adds nothing to your argument.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> What's with your second sentence? It adds nothing to your argument.


Of course it adds. It explains why so many overpriced products sell quite well, be it shoes, watches, wines ...


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, let's see, they don't make enough Nautilus to fulfil the public demand so that means it must be under-priced.
On the other hand, I bet there are more than a few Alpinists sitting in stockrooms around the world, that must mean they are massively over-priced.

Why are Alpinists being compared to Rolex and Omegas and GS watches being compared to Patek Philippe and Audemars Piguet?
That's where the fault lies.

GS watches should be compared to Rolex and Omega and Credor watches should be compared to Patek Philippe and Audemars Piguet. If you do that, you'll see the prices aren't that different.


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

faiz said:


> Every morning this week I've read through the 10 new pages that this thread has spouted.
> And to be honest, I have not learnt much.
> I reckon if someone was to post an epic single post about the topic then that would cover the entire 56 pages.
> However, I don't think that would be possible as this thread has created possibly the most opinionated defenses I've ever seen for anything.
> ...


JLC makes watches anywhere from $5k (basic reverso) all the way up to $500K (sonnerie/gyro tourby/etc)

Grand seiko pretty much ends at $15k (I suppose solid gold version if there are any would be more expensive?) or so I believe in high end. One can not compare brand to brand IMHO but rather comparison should be made in some what same price range.

I have owned a GS and VC, Technical execution of GS is fantastic and on par with VC, but the little details (for example, finishing on the hands are both fantastic, but on my VC, the each SIDE of the hands were finished differently - one side was mirror finish the other side was brushed finish giving it another dimension) were lagging and GS does come (in terms of design/execution) across a bit cold.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course it adds. It explains why so many overpriced products sell quite well, be it shoes, watches, wines ...


No, it's harsh, and judgmental and prejudicial in the extreme. It is based on nothing more than narrow minded assumptions and obvious personal bias on your part. It explains nothing. It adds nothing to your 'argument'. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

hpark21 said:


> One can not compare brand to brand IMHO but rather comparison should be made in some what same price range.


We are not comparing brands, but individual watches. And yes - you can compare 2 watches in the same price range and decide which one is better (Grand Seiko beats Rolex or Omega. But you can also compare 2 watches in completely different price ranges if they have similar technical characteristics and/or performance, for example Grand Seiko and Nautilus. You can then conclude that Nautilus has more elaborately finished movement and than you can ask yourself if all those anglage is really worth $25,000.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> You might be right, but in that case I've been had for only $300 or so, not for $3000 or $30,000. And that's a big difference.
> 
> But most importantly, I couldn't find a better deal for a watch with performances, similar to what I wanted to have, so I have to live with that or forget the watch. This also means that if there is a free market and competition, it is not possible to make such a watch for much less, regardles of your arguments.


Okay, so you're saying it's okay for you to pay $380 for a $80 watch (Alpinist vs. Seiko 5), but paying $26K for a $5K watch (Patek Nautilus vs. Grand Seiko) is the height of folly. Yet in both cases, we're talking about paying 5 times the price of a somewhat comparable but more affordable watch.

The issue I have (and I suspect many other members have) with your posts is that they do not seem to be based on any personal experience of the watches actually being discussed (Grand Seikos, Big Three Swiss watches), you seem to hold opinions that are mutually inconsistent, you repeatedly change the justification for your viewpoint when it seems like your arguments lack traction, and you seem to take a Marxist view of how a decidedly capitalist enterprise like luxury watches should be priced.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> you can also compare 2 watches in completely different price ranges if they have similar technical characteristics and/or performance


So wait, are you saying that if I prefer the taste of $30 single malt then your £300 dollar bottle is over-priced too?
Wow, over-priced Alpinist and over-priced whiskey.
You really are a victim of marketing aren't you?

I mean, it's a well know *fact* that the whiskey industry is massively over inflated mainly because of new rich Chinese and you still fell for it.


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

Who knows? Maybe we'll all wind up as watch pals down the line, but for now I'll offer that I was surprised to see this fella was old enough to buy scotch. The stance he's taking does have some some merit though so I'll assign it an arbitrary value of 18%. However, I still believe it would be best if he took the other side of this argument - which is 4X stronger than the one he currently supports - and tried to work his way back to where he is now (< 2% acceptance). After doing this there's no way he could retain more than 42% of his original position so my guess is that it would be impossible for him to make it all the way to the same spot. The hope here is that this would lead to a 1.3X greater understanding of this topic and at least 3X more consideration for his fellow enthusiasts who he's currently deemed to be a collection of dupes and spendthrifts. Because of the latter and for everyone' ultimate benefit I genuinely wish him the best on WUS in the future (84% truth).


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course it adds. It explains why so many overpriced products sell quite well, be it shoes, watches, wines ...


Aggressive ignorance, yet again. If they sell quite well, they're not "overpriced." By definition.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> We are not comparing brands, but individual watches. And yes - you can compare 2 watches in the same price range and decide which one is better (Grand Seiko beats Rolex or Omega. But you can also compare 2 watches in completely different price ranges if they have similar technical characteristics and/or performance, for example Grand Seiko and Nautilus. You can then conclude that Nautilus has more elaborately finished movement and than you can ask yourself if all those anglage is really worth $25,000.


And merely because it's not "worth" $25,000 to you has absolutely no bearing on whether it's "overpriced." They sell all they make, with a waiting list. By definition, they're not overpriced.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> Aggressive ignorance, yet again. If they sell quite well, they're not "overpriced." By definition.


Aggressively ignorant, as well as just plain aggressive with respect to points of view or positions he doesn't understand:



> owners of Ferraris are poseurs, snobs or just rich people that don't know nothing about sport cars.


Though I may have to revise my previous comment a tad. I, in fact do agree with his last phrase in this sentence. I'm sure plenty of Ferrari owners do not know nothing about sports cars - which of course is to say that they know something about sports cars. [~(~N)], and all that.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> Though I may have to revise my previous comment a tad. I, in fact do agree with his last phrase in this sentence. I'm sure plenty of Ferrari owners do not know nothing about sports cars - which of course is to say that they know something about sports cars. [~(~N)], and all that.


As you know (but which apparently has escaped our friend's notice), all luxury items attract some people who buy them not for their intrinsic quality, but for the amount such purchases impress friends and neighbors (ever notice the thrust of advertising for luxury goods?). That's true of watches as well. But it doesn't mean that they're not far "better" products. I've never driven a Ferrari, but I've shared racetracks with them, and I would have traded cars in a heartbeat (if the Ferrari came with a dowry sufficient to maintain it, of course).

Hell, those of us who like beer, and dislike whisky of all flavors, might be tempted to say that folks who spend a small fortune for a bottle single-malt Scotch whisky are succumbing to clever marketing (or poseurs or snobs).


----------



## LittleTim (Jan 17, 2011)

Entertaining thread. 
My take away is Grand Seiko is not meant to compete with the big three Swiss maker. 

One question. With the talk of long wait list for some of these watches, why don't they increase their prices to match market demands. Surely they have the marketing knowledge to respond quicker to market condition. 

On another note, thumbs up to Highland Park Scotch. My all time favorite. No, I have neither handle nor taste Scotch more expensive than $125. Did you know they used to be less than $25 dollars a fifth? Inflation or market correction?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

LittleTim said:


> Entertaining thread.
> My take away is Grand Seiko is not meant to compete with the big three Swiss maker.


 I think this is accurate.



> One question. With the talk of long wait list for some of these watches, why don't they increase their prices to match market demands. Surely they have the marketing knowledge to respond quicker to market condition.


My guess is that there's an intangible benefit to the manufacturer to have a waiting list for their goods; adds to the cache of the brand, and the apparent exclusivity. They don't want to lose that, so they don't raise prices to meet demand. In addition, when a price is based so much on intangible factors (e.g., prestige, finishing quality, decorated movement), it may be easy to annoy your customer base by raising prices seemingly arbitrarily; since there is competition even at that segment of the market, it doesn't do to annoy your customers.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

I think the Scotch post was the final torpedo, my sonar operator reports sounds consistent with the hull of his argument splitting in half and heading to the bosom of Neptune. 
He later makes a silly point comparing GS and Rolex/Omega. He has yet to answer my question which of the watches he is pontificating about he has actually seen in the metal. Although it has been clear all along it is crystal clear now, he has never held a single one of the watches this thread was originally based on. It is like me saying Speyburn Brandon Orach is as good or better than The Macallan 55 Years old Lalique if they have never tasted or even smelled either one. 


Another pointed out his observation between GS and VC finishing and it echoed my opinion that I expressed earlier. The GS is impeccably finished BUT the VC uses more different finishes. This gives added visual depth and takes more time and effort by more than a factor of two since extra care must be taken where the two finishes meet. Another issue is the amazing amount of anglage used on and in all of the big three's watches and the lack of it in the GS. Anglage is one of the most time consuming finishes and it also requires more craftsmanship than any other standard watch finishing technique. There is a LOT of it on the big three's watches, most every surface in the movement where two planes meet will have it, there are a LOT of these situations in a watches movement. 

The comparison reminds me a lot of Scandinavian furniture design vs Colonial Boston furniture design. While it takes great craftsman to design and complete each at their highest level the craftsman building Colonial Boston furniture will spend much more time on a similar (in function) piece. The minimalist design of the Scandinavian piece will require much less work to build with its flat surfaces and high percentage of 90* angles. The Colonial Boston piece with hand carved ball and claw feet will eat time like a fat kid in a candy factory. As a hobby woodworker I have built both types of pieces and while the level of craftsmanship required is actually pretty much equal at the high end one just takes MUCH more time to realize. For your consideration the Grand Seiko watches are analogous to the Scandinavian design and Pateks are analogous to the Boston designs and all the pieces both watch and furniture reflect not only the level of craftsmanship but the time it takes to produce the particular design. The more complex the design the more it costs to realize.


PS I can't stand Islay Scotches for the most part.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> PS I can't stand Islay Scotches for the most part.


how about one of these instead?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> The more complex the design the more it costs to realize.


And nobody denies that. The problem is you obviously have no idea how much work is required to do all those additional polishing, anglaging and engraving. You live in a fantasy world where a week of watchmaker's labour is worth $25,000.


----------



## tribe125 (Mar 7, 2006)

It would be a mercy killing to close this thread, but here's an idea - everybody give up and go home.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

woohoo 600!


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> how about one of these instead?


Not a cognac person. My passion lies in the Speyside and Highland Scotches and BEER! I am a sucker for the Trappist and the non-Trappist "Abbeys".


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> Not a cognac person. My passion lies in the Speyside and Highland Scotches and BEER! I am a sucker for the Trappist and the non-Trappist "Abbeys".


This one?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And nobody denies that. The problem is you obviously have no idea how much work is required to do all those additional polishing, anglaging and engraving. You live in a fantasy world where a week of watchmaker's labour is worth $25,000.


I actually do a fairly good idea what time and skill it takes and I obviously have a MUCH better idea of the amount of time it takes to do the finishing work than you do. The amount of time to finish the parts of even a basic three hand movement from the big three FAR exceeds 40 hours...

BTW why do you avoid answering the persistent question about which of the watches in question that you have seen in person, I can only assume you don't answer it because you rightly realize it weakens every argument you have posed regarding them.

If you are genuinely interested in watch finishing and the time and skill it takes to accomplish it try this book: "The A-B-C's of Watch Finishing" by Walt Odets it is wuite informative and will help you translate what you see under a loupe into the requisite time and skill it takes to accomplish.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> The amount of time to finish the parts of even a basic three hand movement from the big three FAR exceeds 40 hours...


So Patek with its 50,000 watches in a year have FAR more than 1000 watchmakers just finishing the movements by hand? Are you sure?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> This one?


It is actually on my list to try, despite having over 400 Scotches my local Whisky bar doesn't have it but is supposed to be getting some soon. My favorite distilleries are The Macallen, Speyburn, Craggenmore, Glenfiddich, Balvenie and Glenmorangie. The only Islays I like are from Bruichladdich since some of theirs are not peat monsters.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> Not a cognac person. My passion lies in the Speyside and Highland Scotches and BEER! I am a sucker for the Trappist and the non-Trappist "Abbeys".


A true Trappist beer is a transcendental beer drinking experience. There is, I think, only one or two liquor stores in Edmonton that sell the real stuff, though. I try to buy some whenever I'm in the area.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> I think the Scotch post was the final torpedo, my sonar operator reports sounds consistent with the hull of his argument splitting in half and heading to the bosom of Neptune.
> He later makes a silly point comparing GS and Rolex/Omega. He has yet to answer my question which of the watches he is pontificating about he has actually seen in the metal. Although it has been clear all along it is crystal clear now, he has never held a single one of the watches this thread was originally based on. It is like me saying Speyburn Brandon Orach is as good or better than The Macallan 55 Years old Lalique if they have never tasted or even smelled either one.
> 
> Another pointed out his observation between GS and VC finishing and it echoed my opinion that I expressed earlier. The GS is impeccably finished BUT the VC uses more different finishes. This gives added visual depth and takes more time and effort by more than a factor of two since extra care must be taken where the two finishes meet. Another issue is the amazing amount of anglage used on and in all of the big three's watches and the lack of it in the GS. Anglage is one of the most time consuming finishes and it also requires more craftsmanship than any other standard watch finishing technique. There is a LOT of it on the big three's watches, most every surface in the movement where two planes meet will have it, there are a LOT of these situations in a watches movement.
> ...


Annnnnnd..... done. There's just nothing more that needs to be said.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> A true Trappist beer is a transcendental beer drinking experience. There is, I think, only one or two liquor stores in Edmonton that sell the real stuff, though. I try to buy some whenever I'm in the area.


All I can say is I am sorry! We have 2 local stores that bring in most of the Trappists and our "Whisky bar" has a beer menu that is over 50 pages long and comes in a binder. The have all 9 Trappists and try to get all the limited releases, and he gets a lot of releases via grey market that are not officially imported to the US, he does the same for Scotch.

Beer and Scotch can be overpriced IMO but like watches I choose to pass judgment until I have actually experienced them.


----------



## danandsueco (Jul 15, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> It is actually on my list to try, despite having over 400 Scotches my local Whisky bar doesn't have it but is supposed to be getting some soon. My favorite distilleries are The Macallen, Speyburn, Craggenmore, Glenfiddich, Balvenie and Glenmorangie. The only Islays I like are from Bruichladdich since some of theirs are not peat monsters.


I can understand your distaste for Islay's (and I forgive you... haha) but since you like the above, you're not a fan of Highland Park?

*Sorry not meant to derail thread


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> A true Trappist beer is a transcendental beer drinking experience. There is, I think, only one or two liquor stores in Edmonton that sell the real stuff, though. I try to buy some whenever I'm in the area.


Best beer I've ever had:









This sort of thing can be bought online pretty easily if you needed to go that route.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

danandsueco said:


> I can understand your distaste for Islay's (and I forgive you... haha) but since you like the above, you're not a fan of Highland Park?
> 
> *Sorry not meant to derail thread


This thread has been derailed for a long time.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

danandsueco said:


> *Sorry not meant to derail thread


Don't worry, that ship has long sailed, since we've been entertaining the rants of a person who has no actual experience with any of the brands in the title of this thread.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> Don't worry, that ship has long sailed, since we've been entertaining the rants of a person who has no actual experience with any of the brands in the title of this thread.


I haven't been on the Moon either, but I can tell you that it isn't made of green cheese, as you think it is.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

mleok said:


> Don't worry, that ship has long sailed, since we've been entertaining the rants of a person who has no actual experience with any of the brands in the title of this thread.


Not to mention no idea of how the watches in question are made, the business models of said companies, market price, supply and demand, luxury goods, how to structure a consistent argument.......


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> I haven't been on the Moon either, but I can tell you that it isn't made of green cheese, as you think it is.


If you don't have first hand experience, you can still contribute to a discussion by citing credible sources of information and synthesizing them appropriately. Instead, you have simply made stuff up, backed up with nothing more than intimidation, innuendo, and bravado.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

danandsueco said:


> I can understand your distaste for Islay's (and I forgive you... haha) but since you like the above, you're not a fan of Highland Park?
> 
> *Sorry not meant to derail thread


Don't worry, we can't even FIND the rails for this thread!

Actually, the HP 25 year is one of my wife's and my favorites. I only listed the distilleries that I tend to like top to bottom and are a safe bet for me, the younger HPs for me just don't have the finesse that the 25 and 30 do (even given them credit for their age) and weirdly taste like they are from a different distillery to me.

I know a I "should" like the Islay malts but my wife always comments she can smell Chlorhexidine in them (I guess its a Dr. thing) and so the iodine smell of most Islay malts hits my brain like a baseball bat and I just can't mentally get past it.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> If you don't have first hand experience, you can still contribute to a discussion by citing credible sources of information and synthesizing them appropriately. Instead, you have simply made stuff up, backed up with nothing more than intimidation, innuendo, and bravado.


Please tell one thing that I have made up. Let's take a look at my claim that it takes maximum one week for a watchmaker at Patek to finish the basic movement. Patek makes 50,000 watches a year and have 1600 employees - which of course are not all busy hand polishing the movements. So do the math.


----------



## danandsueco (Jul 15, 2013)

Thanks for the additional laughs guys.

I, too, only really enjoy 18+ on HP. I like the complexity more than its finesse.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

Late to this thread  My local Liquor store had two bottles of 55 YEAR MACALLAN Scotch. They were on sale for $15,000. I was hoping they would not sell so I could low ball them for what I thought they were worth ($1500, lol). But to my surprise, they sold for retail. What were they worth? well, if they sold for it, then they were worth it. |>


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> A true Trappist beer is a transcendental beer drinking experience. There is, I think, only one or two liquor stores in Edmonton that sell the real stuff, though. I try to buy some whenever I'm in the area.


Damn, now I have to find some of these; I've never even heard of them.

I've been very happy with all the microbrews in the Seattle area (and the beer I've started brewing myself); I haven't really learned much about beers elsewhere.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

mleok said:


> Don't worry, that ship has long sailed, since we've been entertaining the rants of a person who has no actual experience with any of the brands in the title of this thread.


The derailments have been far more productive than the watch-related stuff. Heck, I've learned about a kind of beer I now have to try; Okapi hasn't learned anything.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> Damn, now I have to find some of these; I've never even heard of them.
> 
> I've been very happy with all the microbrews in the Seattle area (and the beer I've started brewing myself); I haven't really learned much about beers elsewhere.


OH, if you like microbrews you have to try a trappist brew. Really cool back story too - all the beer is brewest by trappist monks in northern Europe (mostly Belgium, I believe). Because they've taken the vow of poverty (I believe), they sell it to pay their expenses, and donate the rest to local charities. They've been doing this for hundreds of years, too. So it's definitely a refined art form for them. I've found them to be generally a bit of a heavier beer - higher in alcohol content than a lot of beers. Amber tones, yeasty, some hops, but it's definitely nothing like the hyper-hoppy stuff that's in fashion now.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

ljb187 said:


> Who knows? Maybe we'll all wind up as watch pals down the line, but for now I'll offer that I was surprised to see this fella was old enough to buy scotch. The stance he's taking does have some some merit though so I'll assign it an arbitrary value of 18%. However, I still believe it would be best if he took the other side of this argument - which is 4X stronger than the one he currently supports - and tried to work his way back to where he is now (< 2% acceptance). After doing this there's no way he could retain more than 42% of his original position so my guess is that it would be impossible for him to make it all the way to the same spot. The hope here is that this would lead to a 1.3X greater understanding of this topic and at least 3X more consideration for his fellow enthusiasts who he's currently deemed to be a collection of dupes and spendthrifts. Because of the latter and for everyone' ultimate benefit I genuinely wish him the best on WUS in the future (84% truth).


Is there a "love" option? (sadly I can't like from my phone).


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> OH, if you like microbrews you have to try a trappist brew. Really cool back story too - all the beer is brewest by trappist monks in northern Europe (mostly Belgium, I believe). Because they've taken the vow of poverty (I believe), they sell it to pay their expenses, and donate the rest to local charities. They've been doing this for hundreds of years, too. So it's definitely a refined art form for them. I've found them to be generally a bit of a heavier beer - higher in alcohol content than a lot of beers. Amber tones, yeasty, some hops, but it's definitely nothing like the hyper-hoppy stuff that's in fashion now.


Sounds great! I am not a fan of hoppy beers, but I love a good amber ale or brown ale.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> OH, if you like microbrews you have to try a trappist brew. Really cool back story too - all the beer is brewest by trappist monks in northern Europe (mostly Belgium, I believe). Because they've taken the vow of poverty (I believe), they sell it to pay their expenses, and donate the rest to local charities. They've been doing this for hundreds of years, too. So it's definitely a refined art form for them. I've found them to be generally a bit of a heavier beer - higher in alcohol content than a lot of beers. Amber tones, yeasty, some hops, but it's definitely nothing like the hyper-hoppy stuff that's in fashion now.


9 total breweries (only 8 in current production), 2 in the Netherlands, 6 in Belgium and 1 in Austria (restarted new last year). Also there are a ton of Abbey beers which are brewed in the tradition but not technically Trappists. My fav Abbey is St Sebastian easy to spot as they come in crockery bottles. The Trappists are top fermented and bottle conditioned and are generally available in Single, Double and Triple, BUT once in a blue moon some of the Monks "table beer" what they traditionally drink ('cause the water wasn't safe) leaks out and it is sorta a grail of beers, but expect to PAY for the experience. The breweries have to meet very strict requirements to be allowed to label them as Trappist. Taste wise I find they are usually in the "malt bloom", hops bloom first and it is usually gone in these bottle conditioned beers. You will get lots of spices and tons of fruit. A good bartender will pour them in a goblet or chalice AND will leave a 1/2oz or so in the bottle and swirl it to get the sediment which is GOOD! If you pour your own do as the monks do and drink the last drops from the bottle, not only is the taste excellent but it is full of vitamins! If you like them buy up a few different ones and further bottle age them, 2 years is great, 5 years sublime when you start pushing 8 years or so you are in the holy crap this is amazing or man that sucks area.

Edit watch the ABV on these, the complexity covers much of what is relatively high alcohol content (especially the Triples) and they can sneak up on you!


----------



## LittleTim (Jan 17, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> 9 total breweries (only 8 in current production), 2 in the Netherlands, 6 in Belgium and 1 in Austria (restarted new last year). Also there are a ton of Abbey beers which are brewed in the tradition but not technically Trappists. My fav Abbey is St Sebastian easy to spot as they come in crockery bottles. The Trappists are top fermented and bottle conditioned and are generally available in Single, Double and Triple, BUT once in a blue moon some of the Monks "table beer" what they traditionally drink ('cause the water wasn't safe) leaks out and it is sorta a grail of beers, but expect to PAY for the experience. The breweries have to meet very strict requirements to be allowed to label them as Trappist. Taste wise I find they are usually in the "malt bloom", hops bloom first and it is usually gone in these bottle conditioned beers. You will get lots of spices and tons of fruit. A good bartender will pour them in a goblet or chalice AND will leave a 1/2oz or so in the bottle and swirl it to get the sediment which is GOOD! If you pour your own do as the monks do and drink the last drops from the bottle, not only is the taste excellent but it is full of vitamins! If you like them buy up a few different ones and further bottle age them, 2 years is great, 5 years sublime when you start pushing 8 years or so you are in the holy crap this is amazing or man that sucks area.
> 
> Edit watch the ABV on these, the complexity covers much of what is relatively high alcohol content (especially the Triples) and they can sneak up on you!


I vote new thread. Holy crap, I have to try some of these beers. They sound complex (full of flavor).


----------



## gadgetfreak (Mar 8, 2006)

It is about status symbol and there's nothing wrong with that, so if you are trying to show that you are doing well for yourself, Seiko to those not in the know even if it's your Spring Drive Grand Seiko, might aswell be a Seiko 5


TheWalrus said:


> That's not snobbery, in the slightest. It's an honest appraisal of his personal preferences. There's a lot about this hobby that evades easy categorization or description. If someone states a preference (even if they can't justify it), and simultaneously understands why others would choose a different path, that strikes me as the exact _opposite_ of snobbery. It seems, frankly, rather enlightened.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

What I have learned in 60 some pages? Okapi is annoying.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

As another aside the Trappist Monks make excellent cheese as well for a beer and cheese experience try the Chimay à la Bière, as it ages the rind is washed in their beer.


----------



## faiz (Jul 15, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Exactly. Everybody understands that the price difference between two cars with comparable characteristics (not just any two cars - but two sport cars, or 2 SUVs ) cannot be 10x or even more. Or, in case it is, the more expensive is obviously "overpriced" by any reasonable standard. Same goes for washing machins, power tools, TVs, computers, mobile phones ... Why not for watches?


You misunderstood what I wrote.
There is no way that the Mclaren F1 was overpriced.
And the NSX and the F1 did not have comparable characteristics, they were both sports cars but other than that it ends there.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

faiz said:


> You misunderstood what I wrote.
> There is no way that the Mclaren F1 was overpriced.
> And the NSX and the F1 did not have comparable characteristics, they were both sports cars but other than that it ends there.


Well, they were also both mid-engined and with an emphasis on light weight, high tech, construction and high-revving engines....


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> I think the Scotcg post was the final torpedo, my sonar operator reports sounds consistent with the hull of his argument splitting in half and heading to the bosom of Neptune.


this was it for me; when he acknowledged that he, by his own criteria, overpaid by four/five times for his Alpinist then the subsequent glossing over that.


Okapi001 said:


> You might be right, but in that case I've been had for only $300 or so, not for $3000 or $30,000. And that's a big difference.


and that he continually pulls numbers out of thin air that disregard reality. For example, including dealer mark ups required and then pretending that doesnt exist on his own overpriced stuff.

also the denial that Credor watches exist.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Well, I have officially been schooled tonight. After retiring the thread for the evening I got a call from the friend who owns the GS I had mentioned I had looked over back when the thread was young and relevant. After we covered the business he called about I mentioned this discussion and the based on his interest discussed the thread. He is a 49% business, 50% family and 1% eatin', poopin' and sleepin' kinda guy so spening time on internet forums just isn't in his mindset but I apparently woke something up. He first words of response were why in the hell were we talking about GS and the Nautilus, it makes no sense. I suggested it morphed that way and I suppose it was based on price. He slammed my intelligence for a couple of minutes and threatened to revoke my watch cognoscenti card and commenced elucidating me. He proffered the correct comparison would be a GS SBW046 vs a Patek 5196r. Me: OK slow down what was that Seiko number again, I don't know the GS line. Him: Really, you could have fooled me. (dripping with sarcasm). Him: the 46 is a central second three hander in a rose gold case for about $18k, the Patek is a sub second three hander in a rose gold case for about $23k. There isn't a hairs breath between the two watches in terms of quality, the are both elegant and stunning but in slightly different ways. The only difference is style and you drop less coin up from with the Seiko, wear them 5 years and sell them and the Patek will cost you several thousand less to own over the time, maybe $2k if you figure the opportunity cost of the money and you actually find someone in the US that wants that specific GS. Go back and tell the interwebs they are the same just different. Me: OK but what about the Nautilus? Him: That my friend is a far lengthier discussion best done over your wife's crawfish etouffee but just keep in mind there are certain designs in the world you pay a premium for, why do pretty actresses get paid more than the plain ones even if they are just as good at acting. Me: Uh OK thanks. So what do I owe you? Him: Don't worry I'll screw you outta it later. I am pretty sure he hung up on me then, his cell usually doesn't drop out at home and he ends about 25% of our conversations in that manner. 

It may sound stilted but this it pretty much exactly how our conversation went, and frankly more or less like every other conversation we have, it always ends with somebody's balls kicked up near their chin.

Take it for what it is just another opinion but from a fairly thoughtful watch guy, in the end it makes a lot of sense, I haven't seen the GS in question but once I looked at it on the web I agree with the comparison, though I am certainly at a disadvantage since I have never seen this GS.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Since you guys are still slugging it out, I thought I would post a few close up pics of a Grand Seiko. I also included some pics of my 33 year old oysterquartz because it's recently been overhauled in a major way and is therefore in similar condition. I would have included some true high end watches, but I'm still working on that part of my collection...

First, the GS: This is an SBGX103, which is quartz, but it's a special limited edition for all that and the case finishing is the usual GS standard.









The next pictures show the very nice finishing and curvature of the case. It also shows the connection of the bracelet. Sorry about the lint.

































The dial is nicely construction and detailed:















The next pictures are of my 33 Y.O. Oysterquartz, very lightly worn and in near NOS condition. It holds up surprisingly well for it's age:









It also has a nicely curved and finished case:


























Bracelet is absolutely a work of art:















Dial Markers aren't as well done as the GS, but then again, it is 33 years old. My 43 YO King Seiko looks worse:









In the end, I'd say Seiko wins the dial, Rolex wins the bracelet, and they pretty much tie on the case.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Will, thanks for those EXCELLENT pictures! I love the Lion dial on the GS.


----------



## Bomfunk (Apr 25, 2013)

All I've learned from the 60 pages in this thread: Okapi001 has the knowledge to decide what's overpriced. If he likes something e.g. Brand x scotch, it's not overpriced; it's suddenly "better value".


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> Will, thanks for those EXCELLENT pictures! I love the Lion dial on the GS.


They're hard to notice in real life. It pretty much just looks like a subtly textured dial when you're wearing it. Anyone other than yourself is unlikely to ever see it unless you're both in bed with the lights on.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm a big fan of those 70s style integrated bracelets. When the watch is designed for a bracelet, normal lugs just aren't necessary so I don't quite get some people's issue with them.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I'm a big fan of those 70s style integrated bracelets. When the watch is designed for a bracelet, normal lugs just aren't necessary so I don't quite get some people's issue with them.


Pay homage to Gerald Genta, father of the integrated bracelet, initially on the AP RO. I find it a shame they still haven't become universal.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

drunken monkey said:


> I'm a big fan of those 70s style integrated bracelets. When the watch is designed for a bracelet, normal lugs just aren't necessary so I don't quite get some people's issue with them.


The primary issues are cost and replacement availability. That bracelet looks good because I paid Rolex $1050 to replace it in June.


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

omeglycine said:


> Is there a "love" option? (sadly I can't like from my phone).


Get tapatalk


----------



## Lexus050470 (Sep 10, 2012)

Will_f said:


> Since you guys are still slugging it out, I thought I ...


great macro shots. Let the photos speak for themselves! TFS!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> this was it for me; when he acknowledged that he, by his own criteria, overpaid by four/five times for his Alpinist then the subsequent glossing over that.


This was it for me, when monkey in another thread said that $500 for a steel bracelet is "a bit too much" - without knowing anything about that bracelet. One can only imagine what would he said about a $2000 bracelet. So have fun, I'm out of this hypocritical disscusion.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm out of this hypocritical disscusion.


So it won't be "hypocritical" any more? :-d


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> This was it for me, when monkey in another thread said that $500 for a steel bracelet is "a bit too much" - without knowing anything about that bracelet. One can only imagine what would he said about a $2000 bracelet. So have fun, I'm out of this hypocritical disscusion.


That was a different discussion; one about the disparity of prices between buying a new watch and buying the bracelet as an accessory, as well as being about the difference between cost of bracelet vs strap (and deployant).

i.e how buying parts has always cost more than buying the item whole.

When you buy a watch new, there is often little to no difference between the price of it with bracelet or with strap. However, when you buy those items afterwards as an individual item, there is often a huge price differential.

Hypocrisy is ignoring that one overpaid for an Alpinist whilst shouting about how other people are overpaying for their watches.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

Okapi001 said:


> Of course it adds. It explains why so many overpriced products sell quite well, be it shoes, watches, wines ...


*overpriced* -_ adj _- too expensive; costing more than it is worth.

*worth *- _adj_ - the amount of money that something can be sold for.

From these two definitions, we can see that when something becomes "overpriced", it becomes priced higher than it can be sold for, ie it won't sell.

You are confusing "overpriced" with "costing more than I am willing to pay."

If I decide that $9.95 buys a quartz accurate watch from Walmart, and I refuse to pay more than that for a watch does that mean all watches over $10 are "overpriced"?

Don't be stupid, of course not.....


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

lysanderxiii said:


> You are confusing "overpriced" with "costing more than I am willing to pay."
> 
> If I decide that $9.95 buys a quartz accurate watch from Walmart, and I refuse to pay more than that for a watch does that mean all watches over $10 are "overpriced"?


funny you should say that because that is pretty much his (circular) argument.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

lysanderxiii said:


> *overpriced* -_ adj _- too expensive; costing more than it is worth.
> 
> *worth *- _adj_ - the amount of money that something can be sold for.
> 
> ...


i am expecting the question of why/how is it justifiable that a HAQ (lets say a bretling colt in this instance) is worth the extra $4k over a $9.95 walmart quartz


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

mikeylacroix said:


> i am expecting the question of why/how is it justifiable that a HAQ (lets say a bretling colt in this instance) is worth the extra $4k over a $9.95 walmart quartz


Hey now. I would have thought my post on two HAQs would answer that question.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

Will_f said:


> Hey now. I would have thought my post on two HAQs would answer that question.


hehe but we are going around in circles no?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lysanderxiii said:


> Don't be stupid, of course not.....


You are all hidding your false arguments behind some semantics, and when I ask what is the correct English term for the price of the $2000 Reichenbach, or a $2000 OEM bracelet, all is silent. In all of this thread you all together were not able to produce one single valid argument, all you can do is attacking ad persona and calling names. You are all full of prejudices and biases and obviously not able to disscus in a civilised manner. Shame on you!


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> You are all hidding your false arguments behind some semantics, and when I ask what is the correct English term for the price of the $2000 Reichenbach, or a $2000 OEM bracelet, all is silent. In all of this thread you all together were not able to produce one single valid argument, all you can do is attacking ad persona and calling names. You are all full of prejudices and biases and obviously not able to disscus in a civilised manner. Shame on you!


What?
A Reichenbach is not a Rolex, nor is it a Patek.
The three are not remotely comparable and intelligent people are ignoring it is because it is stupid; I'm addressing it because I'm a dumbass.

you seem pretty silent about your overpaying for your Alpinist and Whiskey.

Back to the bracelets; the difference between my comment is that I was comparing two like for like products made by similar companies that demonstrated a price difference that I can't account for. You on the other hand, keep pulling numbers out of thin air with no demonstration of having actually even touched or seen anything like the things we are talking about. It also ignores that I was talking about bracelets as items bought as an accessory where the prices of things, not just in the watch industry, do not display parity between it as an individual item and the product of which it is a part of.

And because you keep ignoring it; let's for a moment agree that (all) watches are overpriced by the nature of the state of the industry.
How is overpaying four/fives for a Swiss watch different to overpaying for a Seiko Alpinist?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> You are all hidding your false arguments behind some semantics, and when I ask what is the correct English term for the price of the $2000 Reichenbach, or a $2000 OEM bracelet, all is silent. In all of this thread you all together were not able to produce one single valid argument, all you can do is attacking ad persona and calling names. You are all full of prejudices and biases and obviously not able to disscus in a civilised manner. Shame on you!


you know, there is a way for you to avoid this "attack" on your persona in this thread . . . .and it's the same way you can avoid such "despicable behavior" on a greater forum level, think about it . . .


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

You know, as a brief aside, one thing about this thread is that it's _really_ making me want a high end watch. A Patek. A VC. An AP. Even something like a JLC or a GS. The photos of the finishing are stunning.

I went and browsed around on Chrono24 and various other sites.... I should probably buy a house first. And a second car. But man, so tempting - especially when you can buy a PP Calatrava from the early 90s for a not-mind-bending price.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

mikeylacroix said:


> hehe but we are going around in circles no?


after > 600 posts, I think I'm seeing more of a swirling motion, not unlike what I see as water goes down a drain.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> You know, as a brief aside, one thing about this thread is that it's _really_ making me want a high end watch. A Patek. A VC. A AP. Even something like a JLC or a GS. The photos of the finishing are stunning.


I keep looking at my little wine stash.
I think I need to source a few more bottles of 1998 Le Mont Vouvray Demi-Sec.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I keep looking at my little wine stash.
> I think I need to source a few more bottles of 1998 Le Mont Vouvray Demi-Sec.


I can't tell how much better it is then my £4 red wine...so u must be overpaying.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> I keep looking at my little wine stash.
> I think I need to source a few more bottles of 1998 Le Mont Vouvray Demi-Sec.


I'm not quite at that level with wine yet. But I can see how addicting (in the good way), wine can be. Over the last.... 2 years or so I've really been trying to learn a lot more about it. Learn to tell the differences between the various grapes and blends, the points of origin, etc. etc. Not even close to being a oenophile just yet but I believe I've refined my tastes, to some degree.

I can see this hobby turning expensive on me, though...


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> In all of this thread you all together were not able to produce one single valid argument, all you can do is attacking ad persona and calling names. !


Did you read post #632? The information was provided by someone that owns or has owned ALL the brands in question and is a fan of Seiko GS watches. It seems when you compare apples to apples, which we apparently have not been, the price difference between GS and Patek is about 25% at retail, not the multiples that have been discussed, if one were to sell the watch in the future the superior resell of the Patek (in the US at least) would make it the cheaper watch to own. Just food for thought. I wish I could see both of the watches he mentioned at the same time and same place. They seem to be very similar watches.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> I wish I could see both of the watches he mentioned at the same time and same place. They seem to be very similar watches.


I hope I never see both of the watches he mentioned, at the same time and place. I'm not sure I have that kind of self control. And the Alberta Bar tends to frown on seeing its members sprinting down the street, cackling maniacally, while clutching wrist watches they don't own.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

gadgetfreak said:


> It is about status symbol and there's nothing wrong with that, so if you are trying to show that you are doing well for yourself, Seiko to those not in the know even if it's your Spring Drive Grand Seiko, might aswell be a Seiko 5


Same can be said for ALS, Patek, JLC, etc... wear those and you may as well be wearing a Fossil, only those in the know will know what it is or give a crap. Survey 1000 random people maybe 5 will have heard of A. Lange and Sohne, and they'll be watch folks and have heard of Grand Seiko too more than likely.

Let's face it, if it isn't Breitling, Tag, or Rolex the masses won't know or care what it is.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> I'm not quite at that level with wine yet. But I can see how addicting (in the good way), wine can be. Over the last.... 2 years or so I've really been trying to learn a lot more about it. Learn to tell the differences between the various grapes and blends, the points of origin, etc. etc. Not even close to being a oenophile just yet but I believe I've refined my tastes, to some degree.
> 
> I can see this hobby turning expensive on me, though...


I'm no wine buff.
I'm particular about that one because of all of the wine that I have had, that is by far the tastiest thing I've had and the only time I began to "get" what they are talking about when they go on about complex bouquets and different layers of different tastes and aromas. My first sampling wasn't actually that one, it was a later 2003 year one from a different vineyard but the same house (they have three slightly different plots) that my uncle (the one to whom those £500-750 bottles of whiskey and cognac belong to) bought a bunch over for a family dinner once. After that, I had a quick look at what it was that I was actually drinking and that lead me to trying different vintages. I happened across a menu/winelist with a 1998 one when I was a Venice a couple of years back and it wasn't badly priced so I thought I'd give it a try and the non wine drinking lady opposite me declared that it was delicious and, well, it was and it has stuck with me since.

All in all, I've never had a bad one from them (_Heut_ for those that are interested) from any of their vineyards and even their younger wines are good but I think their prices reflect the quality of their product.

It is, in case I haven't mentioned it, a white.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

This won't be popular but any wine bottle over $20.00 is essentially a complete waste of money. They've proven time and time again using blind taste tests even with very seasoned whine, whiskey, and vodka connoisseurs that once you reach a certain level of quality they can't tell the difference and typically prefer the more reasonably priced brands. Wine and Whiskey tasting is as pretentious as watch wearing. Again I said it wouldn't be popular but there it is. Expensive wine and expensive watches are all about status (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a capitalist and hope to be inordinately wealthy someday).

That pretension is even seeping into beer drinking now, take a mediocre micro-brew, toss in a stupid amount of hops, charge triple for it.

_going to find a couch to hide behind..._


----------



## shtora (Jan 11, 2009)

Hi all,

I may be wrong, but I always thought that joy was the expected result from the watch hobby.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Sure, just as long as you understand I came to my position on that wine purely by my tasting experience of it and others.
I should add that my family (and extended family) has a 30 odd year in the restaurant business, not to mention that uncle I mentioned earlier is a big wine drinker and probably qualifies as a wine importer/exporter by himself and in those years, I have tasted my share. I like that particular one, because I think it is the best tasting white wine I have ever had and continued to have. I do not rule out that next year, I that I could try one at half the price and find it equally delicious.
The price is just that; the price (of entry as they say).


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

woohoo post #666


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> This won't be popular but any wine bottle over $20.00 is essentially a complete waste of money. They've proven time and time again using blind taste tests even with very seasoned whine, whiskey, and vodka connoisseurs that once you reach a certain level of quality they can't tell the difference and typically prefer the more reasonably priced brands. Wine and Whiskey tasting is as pretentious as watch wearing. Again I said it wouldn't be popular but there it is. Expensive wine and expensive watches are all about status (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a capitalist and hope to be inordinately wealthy someday).
> 
> That pretension is even seeping into beer drinking now, take a mediocre micro-brew, toss in a stupid amount of hops, charge triple for it.
> 
> _going to find a couch to hide behind..._


I think that what you can say about wine is that you _can_ find some really nice bottles for very cheap prices. One of my favorites is Barefoot. Good California brand that makes a really nice wine. $10, out the door. At the same time, there are a lot of pretty bad low priced bottles. At least what I've found is that as you move up in price the chances of getting a bad bottle go down - even if the upper reaches of quality are only marginally increased - if at all. That said, I've bought a couple of higher end bottles of wine, and, while it might be largely psychological, I certainly preferred them...

Definitely disagree on beer, though. The hoppy microbrews are a passing fancy. But a really high quality micro brew, is a world away from the mass produced stuff. Drinking something like a Blanche de Cambly (Quebec beer), or as mentioned here, the Trappist brews provides you with an experience that doesn't seem like the same drink as your typical mass produced stuff (Coors, Big Rock - that's Albertan, Bud, Kokanee, etc.). Not that those mass produced beers don't have a place, of course.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> This won't be popular but any wine bottle over $20.00 is essentially a complete waste of money.
> _going to find a couch to hide behind..._


Well that's basically exactly what I said about watches some 550 posts ago.;-) When you reach certain level of quality (it this case Grand Seiko), everything beyond that is highly questionable (regarding price/quality). Only blind tests are a little more difficult to perform when we are talking about watches It's sometimes painfull to even think that the emperor might be naked.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

oh, so you can't tell the difference between wine and a watch either?
Water is (sorta) free from my tap, wine costs £6-30, therefore a Patek is overpriced.
I get ya now.

Well done.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> I think that what you can say about wine is that you _can_ find some really nice bottles for very cheap prices. One of my favorites is Barefoot. Good California brand that makes a really nice wine. $10, out the door. At the same time, there are a lot of pretty bad low priced bottles. At least what I've found is that as you move up in price the chances of getting a bad bottle go down - even if the upper reaches of quality are only marginally increased - if at all. That said, I've bought a couple of higher end bottles of wine, and, while it might be largely psychological, I certainly preferred them...
> 
> Definitely disagree on beer, though. The hoppy microbrews are a passing fancy. But a really high quality micro brew, is a world away from the mass produced stuff. Drinking something like a Blanche de Cambly (Quebec beer), or as mentioned here, the Trappist brews provides you with an experience that doesn't seem like the same drink as your typical mass produced stuff (Coors, Big Rock - that's Albertan, Bud, Kokanee, etc.). Not that those mass produced beers don't have a place, of course.


With wine (and I don't own this statement) the difference between a $10.00 and $25.00 bottle of wine is huge, the difference between a $25.00 bottle of wine and a $100.00 bottle? Not so much.

I like the Trappist ales OK, I'll pick one up for special occasions, I rarely drink Bud unless it's a BBQ and I know I'll be drinking quite a few on a hot day. But beer has gotten stupid now, any beer made in some rundown converted brewery with ten times the amount of hops tries to charge a premium. I don't mind a hoppy beer, but it has to be done right. But even with beer there's simply a limit on what can be charged, a $10.00 bottle of beer is basically the beer equivalent to a $200 bottle of champagne, so it hasn't gotten ridiculous yet like wine and whiskey has.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> With wine (and I don't own this statement) the difference between a $10.00 and $25.00 bottle of wine is huge, the difference between a $25.00 bottle of wine and a $100.00 bottle? Not so much.
> 
> I like the Trappist ales OK, I'll pick one up for special occasions, I rarely drink Bud unless it's a BBQ and I know I'll be drinking quite a few on a hot day. But beer has gotten stupid now, any beer made in some rundown converted brewery with ten times the amount of hops tries to charge a premium. I don't mind a hoppy beer, but it has to be done right. But even with beer there's simply a limit on what can be charged, a $10.00 bottle of beer is basically the beer equivalent to a $200 bottle of champagne, so it hasn't gotten ridiculous yet like wine and whiskey has.


I don't necessarily disagree about the wine thing. Honestly, how you serve wine - proper glasses, proper aeration - seems to make a bigger difference, to me, than the price of the bottle. That said, if my mind tricks me into believing that a $100 tastes better than a $25 bottle... I think I'm still fine with that. I'll pay for a little placebo, from time to time.

I definitely get you on the beer as well. But I suspect that this is as crazy as beer can get. I know there are beer connoisseurs out there that'll pay 10, 15, 20 a bottle for a crafty micro-brew. But I really don't see it getting much more out of control than that. I think the micro-brew phenomenon is here to stay, but I think the market has changed to accommodate it, as much as possible. It is, after all, just beer. Though I could be way, way off here, too.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Mike_Dowling said:


> With wine (and I don't own this statement) the difference between a $10.00 and $25.00 bottle of wine is huge, the difference between a $25.00 bottle of wine and a $100.00 bottle? Not so much.
> 
> *I like the Trappist ales OK, I'll pick one up for special occasions, I rarely drink Bud unless it's a BBQ and I know I'll be drinking quite a few on a hot day. But beer has gotten stupid now, any beer made in some rundown converted brewery with ten times the amount of hops tries to charge a premium.* I don't mind a hoppy beer, but it has to be done right. But even with beer there's simply a limit on what can be charged, a $10.00 bottle of beer is basically the beer equivalent to a $200 bottle of champagne, so it hasn't gotten ridiculous yet like wine and whiskey has.


I'm not a beer person but I think you're drawing too close to conflating what I gather a Trappist Ale to be and a modern micro-brewery (and market trends).


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> the difference between a $25.00 bottle of wine and a $100.00 bottle? Not so much.


In fact the $100 wine can easily be far worse than the $25, by any standard and scientifically proven with the blind test. But some of the watch experts on this forum are convinced that as long as people are buying that $100 wine (and it's perhaps even sold out because of the high demand) it's blasphemy to even think that it might be overpriced, or not worth the money or whatever is that mysterious English term for such a situation, that you are hidding it from me.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

how about your overpriced bottles of whiskey?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> how about your overpriced bottles of whiskey?


Yes, what about them?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> Yes, what about them?


overpriced, right?
yet you bought them, why?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> overpriced, right?
> yet you bought them, why?


Did I ever said that it's forbidden to buy overpriced goods?


----------



## jaws revenge (Jul 20, 2007)

price is what you pay.
value is what you get.
the price you pay, determine the value.

in general terms, by price you can look at:
profit margin
and/or
value proposition

these are techincally independent, based on value received. remember that value is not neccessarily a objective measurement. it can also, and in the case of watches, be very subjective. same concept of 'goodwill' in accounting.
in an obvious example, some people will place higher value on a product made in country x vs y, even though there might not be a measurable difference. none the less, there is in fact a value difference.

if someone is willing to pay x because of y value returned, then the price is okay
if something says the profit margin of x product is 5% and for product y is 10%, that is a completely different subject.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

nope.
but you seem reluctant to accept that your own things are equally over-priced.

You might not believe this but my problem isn't with the point you are trying to make and in some regards, I actually agree with certain aspects. Unfortunately you are rubbish at making a point and resort to pulling numbers out of thin air, extreme double standard in applying those numbers, all tied together with your obvious anti-Swiss sentiment that is decrying all things Swiss all the while ignoring that the things you criticise the Swiss watch industry of being applies equally to Japanese watches.

*All* watches are over-priced but that is the nature of the market/industry.
By your standards, even a Seiko 5 is overpriced.

Was it you that talked about sales taxes and whatever as if that is indictment of Swiss watches?

edit:
just did a quick post check but that might not have been you, so apologies if it wasn't


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Well that's basically exactly what I said about watches some 550 posts ago.;-) When you reach certain level of quality (it this case Grand Seiko), everything beyond that is highly questionable (regarding price/quality). Only blind tests are a little more difficult to perform when we are talking about watches It's sometimes painfull to even think that the emperor might be naked.


I don't necessarily disagree with that, my only issue with your argument was that Seiko is some magic brand clearly worth double to triple what it sells for, and nothing at the Swiss entry level brands can compete with Seiko. I probably agree that watches quickly reach the level of inconspicuous consumption beyond a certain quality level. Not for everyone, some people are just avid collectors with cash.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> *All* watches are over-priced but that is the nature of the market/industry.
> By your standards, even a Seiko 5 is overpriced.


Not by *my *standards. The fact that watchmakers and retailers are having profit doesn't mean that all watches are thus overpriced. But even if it is true that by *some *standards all watches are indeed overpriced, it is most certainly not true that all watches are *equaly *overpriced.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> my only issue with your argument was that Seiko is some magic brand clearly worth double to triple what it sells for,.


I never said that Seiko is worth more than it sells for. I said that it is worth exactly what it sells for. Or, if you want, that it is less overpriced than Swiss made watches. If only we can agree on some objective criteria for evaluation of the quality (or value).


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> You know, as a brief aside, one thing about this thread is that it's _really_ making me want a high end watch. A Patek. A VC. An AP. Even something like a JLC or a GS. The photos of the finishing are stunning.
> 
> I went and browsed around on Chrono24 and various other sites.... I should probably buy a house first. And a second car. But man, so tempting - especially when you can buy a PP Calatrava from the early 90s for a not-mind-bending price.


Yeah, I know the feeling. I once looked at a Patek, cuz it was a nice store. I don't know which one, but it had a moon phase (I love a nice moon phase), and it was astonishingly beautiful. One does not have to be educated in the fine nuances of watches to tell the difference between a merely "nice" watch (think, e.g., GS, Rolex or Omega) and a fabulous watch.

At other times I've drooled all over a few high end JLC watches; incredible creations, and I say that as one who owns a number of (merely) fine watches.

I'll never spend $30,000 on a watch. But that's because I'll never be rich enough to do so comfortably, not because of the absurd notion that they're "overpriced."


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> I'm not quite at that level with wine yet. But I can see how addicting (in the good way), wine can be. Over the last.... 2 years or so I've really been trying to learn a lot more about it. Learn to tell the differences between the various grapes and blends, the points of origin, etc. etc. Not even close to being a oenophile just yet but I believe I've refined my tastes, to some degree.
> 
> I can see this hobby turning expensive on me, though...


One of the great mistakes one can make in life is to learn just how much better a $40 bottle of wine is than a $15 bottle. And, by extension, an $80 over a $40.

Don't do it!


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> This won't be popular but any wine bottle over $20.00 is essentially a complete waste of money. They've proven time and time again using blind taste tests even with very seasoned whine, whiskey, and vodka connoisseurs that once you reach a certain level of quality they can't tell the difference and typically prefer the more reasonably priced brands. Wine and Whiskey tasting is as pretentious as watch wearing. Again I said it wouldn't be popular but there it is. Expensive wine and expensive watches are all about status (not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a capitalist and hope to be inordinately wealthy someday).
> 
> That pretension is even seeping into beer drinking now, take a mediocre micro-brew, toss in a stupid amount of hops, charge triple for it.
> 
> _going to find a couch to hide behind..._


Wow, Okapi checks out (at least I hope he means it), and you come to take his place with absurd assertions!


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

124Spider said:


> One of the great mistakes one can make in life is to learn just how much better a $40 bottle of wine is than a $15 bottle. And, by extension, an $80 over a $40.


It isn't necessarily about the price and in fact, it shouldn't be.

One of my cousins really did not like white wine and above all whites, she _hated_ Chardonnay; that is until she tried a Cloudy Bay Chardonnay. With no reference to the label or knowing the price she said something along the lines of "oh, this is quite nice, I'll have some more of that please".
Taste above price.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

124Spider said:


> One of the great mistakes one can make in life is to learn just how much better a $40 bottle of wine is than a $15 bottle. And, by extension, an $80 over a $40. Don't do it!


That's consumerism, not oenology. The real advantage of being expert (or having a friend that is an expert, in my case) is to know which $25 wine is as good or better than some overhyped $80 wine.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

drunken monkey said:


> It isn't necessarily about the price and in fact, it shouldn't be.
> 
> One of my cousins really did not like white wine and above all whites, she _hated_ Chardonnay; that is until she tried a Cloudy Bay Chardonnay. With no reference to the label or knowing the price she said something along the lines of "oh, this is quite nice, I'll have some more of that please".
> Taste above all price.


Sure, taste is all that matters.

But there really is a high correlation between higher prices, and smoother, more complex, more drinkable wines. There are expensive wines I don't like, and there are relatively cheap wines I like just fine (I have no trouble finding a $15 bottle that works just fine for my tastes).

But when I sip a really good, expensive wine (say, US$50 or above, and really good--not merely expensive), it does have something that is just pleasant on the palette wines not so carefully made lack.

It's only a correlation, but it's a pretty good one--double the price (controlling for variables such as year, varietal and location), and most people could tell a difference, most of the time.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Wow, Okapi checks out (at least I hope he means it), and you come to take his place with absurd assertions!


Wine tasting is largely junk science, you say an $80 bottle of wine is much better than a $40 bottle of wine? I guarantee someone can lineup samples from eight different $40 bottles, and two different $80 bottles and you will not with any rate of accuracy be able to pick out which is which. Once you hit a certain level of quality the difference is completely subjective and more about inconspicuous consumption than anything else.

The fact that you can make a statement that there is a dollar cutoff as minuscule as $40 that makes some wide sweeping difference in the way wine tastes may be one of the dumbest things I've read in this thread.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> That's consumerism, not oenology. The real advantage of being expert (or having a friend that is an expert, in my case) is to know which $25 wine is as good or better than some overhyped $80 wine.


Exactly, but 124Spider believes because he paid $80.00 for a bottle it's twice as good as any $40.00 bottle, of course that's ridiculous.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> One of the great mistakes one can make in life is to learn just how much better a $40 bottle of wine is than a $15 bottle. And, by extension, an $80 over a $40.
> 
> Don't do it!


I've already spent a little too much on wine that I really liked. You're in Washington, so I assume you've probably driven down to Napa or Sonoma and indulged in some great wines. I went there on my Honeymoon, and ended up spending the better part of a day at: Castello di Amorosa . They make absolutely beautiful wines. Not many are hyper expensive, but most are in the $40 - $60 range. We fell in love with all of them, and spent more money than we should have importing a variety box into Canada (Alberta being one of the few provinces that even allows it, albeit at a high cost). It was well worth it. If you're in the area, you should definitely check it out. The castle is pretty cool too.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Not sure if this is the same as in the US but in the UK, for a long time, there has been huge amount of rubbish sold at the lower end of the price spectrum. It isn't until recently, say in the past 10 years or so that the industry has been filtering out the rubbish so that the true decent wines at that price level can be treated respectfully and not in comparison to those that were just rubbish.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Wine tasting is largely junk science, you say an $80 bottle of wine is much better than a $40 bottle of wine? I guarantee someone can lineup samples from eight different $40 bottles, and two different $80 bottles and you will not with any rate of accuracy be able to pick out which is which. Once you hit a certain level of quality the difference is completely subjective and more about inconspicuous consumption than anything else.
> 
> The fact that you can make a statement that there is a dollar cutoff as minuscule as $40 that makes some wide sweeping difference in the way wine tastes may be one of the dumbest things I've read in this thread.


Whatever.

To assert that there is no discernible difference between a $20 bottle of wine and ANY wine more expensive (as you did) is sillier than what I wrote, I can assure you.

If you're happy with $20 wine, that's fine; there are lots of very good ones, and there's no reason to spend more than that if you're happy there. If Okapi is happy with a $25 Timex, that's fine; they're quite good for what they're supposed to be. But for either of you to assert that anything above that level is a "waste of money" or "overpriced" reflects on your ignorance. But if you want to advertise your ignorance, be my guest.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> I've already spent a little too much on wine that I really liked. You're in Washington, so I assume you've probably driven down to Napa or Sonoma and indulged in some great wines. I went there on my Honeymoon, and ended up spending the better part of a day at: Castello di Amorosa . They make absolutely beautiful wines. Not many are hyper expensive, but most are in the $40 - $60 range. We fell in love with all of them, and spent more money than we should have importing a variety box into Canada (Alberta being one of the few provinces that even allows it, albeit at a high cost). It was well worth it. If you're in the area, you should definitely check it out. The castle is pretty cool too.


Yeah, we've gone to Napa/Sonoma. But the truth is that Washington is a great wine state, and we pretty much stick to Washington wines.

Well, except for bubbly; for that, we've never yet found one that compares to the good French offerings.

We've been to the castle; cool place, and good wine.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

124Spider said:


> Whatever.
> 
> To assert that there is no discernible difference between a $20 bottle of wine and ANY wine more expensive (as you did) is sillier than what I wrote, I can assure you.
> 
> If you're happy with $20 wine, that's fine; there are lots of very good ones, and there's no reason to spend more than that if your happy there. If Okapi is happy with a $25 Timex, that's fine; they're quite good for what they're supposed to be. But for either of you to assert that anything above that level is a "waste of money" or "overpriced" reflects on your ignorance. But if you want to advertise your ignorance, be my guest.


And if you want to advertise your gullibility by drinking your $80.00 bottle believing it is somehow magically twice as good as a $40.00 bottle go right ahead. You are a marketers dream.

I said that the difference between a $10.00 bottle and $25.00 bottle is typically quite large in terms of quality of the product. The difference between a $25.00 bottle and a $100.00 is largely imperceptible and subjective (and this has quite frequently been shown in blind taste tests).


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I said that the difference between a $10.00 bottle and $25.00 bottle is typically quite large in terms of quality of the product. The difference between a $25.00 bottle and a $100.00 is largely imperceptible and subjective (and this has quite frequently been shown in blind taste tests).


when you get above a certain price range, the cost is often a reflection of the availability of the product.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

124Spider said:


> Yeah, we've gone to Napa/Sonoma. But the truth is that Washington is a great wine state, and we pretty much stick to Washington wines.
> 
> Well, except for bubbly; for that, we've never yet found one that compares to the good French offerings.
> 
> We've been to the castle; cool place, and good wine.


It's a shame, we actually get very few Washington wines up here. Plenty of California wines, though. Which is odd. Wonder if it's something to do with more direct competition between BC and Washington State....


----------



## geoffbot (Mar 12, 2011)

Sorry - you're telling me that there's a markup on fine wine as well as fine watches?! 

Next you'll be telling me that my Ralph Lauren polos aren't worth more than those one can purchase as ASDA for a tenner...


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> And if you want to advertise your gullibility by drinking your $80.00 bottle believing it is somehow magically twice as good as a $40.00 bottle go right ahead. You are a marketers dream.
> 
> I said that the difference between a $10.00 bottle and $25.00 bottle is typically quite large in terms of quality of the product. The difference between a $25.00 bottle and a $100.00 is largely imperceptible and subjective (and this has quite frequently been shown in blind taste tests).


You're the only one talking about quantifying how much better a more expensive bottle is. I only said that there is a correlation between higher prices (assuming you're careful) and better wines.

And the post of yours I laughed at was that no bottle over $20 is better than a good $20 bottle. And I laugh at that absurd assertion every time I see it.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> when you get above a certain price range, the cost is often a reflection of the availability of the product.


I wondered how long it would take to get to this point. One of the reasons this thread keeps on going is that:

PEOPLE ARE CONFUSING THE COST OF WINE WITH HOW GOOD IT TASTES!

I agree that over a certain price, it becomes harder to distinguish good wines (athough I'd be wary of using absolutes such as 'nobody can tell the difference between a $20 bottle and an $80 bottle' without some sort of evidence to back it up), but the whole analogy is misplaced. Wine cost is determined by availability. You may PERSONALLY think an $800 dollar bottle of Penfolds Grange is overpriced, but that is how much it sells for. Good luck getting it any cheaper. It will appreciate in value (depending on the state of the market). Deal with it.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

124Spider said:


> *You're the only one talking about quantifying how much better a more expensive bottle is...
> *
> And the post of yours I laughed at was that no bottle over $20 is better than a good $20 bottle. And I laugh at that absurd assertion every time I see it.





124Spider said:


> One of the great mistakes one can make in life is to learn just how much better a $40 bottle of wine is than a $15 bottle. And, by extension, an $80 over a $40. "




hmmm...

As for the second part look up the word hyperbole. I'm still laughing at the idiocy of declaring an $80.00 bottle of wine better tasting than a $40.00 bottle. Thank god for that 40 bucks or this wine may taste like s***.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> It's a shame, we actually get very few Washington wines up here. Plenty of California wines, though. Which is odd. Wonder if it's something to do with more direct competition between BC and Washington State....


My observation from my many trips to your marvelous country (and I really mean that) is that I suspect you have high import duty on wine. When I find a bottle whose US price I know, I am astonished at how much more expensive it is in BC than in WA. And the typical BC wine, which "should" be a $20 bottle, is always more expensive.

I don't much care, because I'm quite happy to bring our wine with us (and they border folks don't mind a few bottles), but it's interesting to note.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> hmmm...
> 
> As for the second part look up the word hyperbole. I'm still laughing at the idiocy of declaring an $80.00 bottle of wine better tasting than a $40.00 bottle. Thank god for that 40 buck or this wine may taste like s***.


Keep laughing; I'm glad I could improve your day; you're very easy to amuse.

You, like Okapi before you, seem to love to show your unusual (that's it, unusual) combination of ignorance and arrogance. I'm not sure why, but it is impressive.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

geoffbot said:


> Sorry - you're telling me that there's a markup on fine wine as well as fine watches?!


Depends on who the buyer is and who you're buying from.
Strangely enough, if you're say, one of the directors of a large casino company, you oddly enough get much better prices than when a regular member of the public buys them.
You even get boxes for "free" sometimes.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Forget it, not worth my time.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Yawn...
> 
> Right about now you're wondering why the guy who took the high with me the other day when I resorted to completely unwarranted personal attacks didn't stand for my arrogance, insults, and bullying today? And right you are, owned and shown to be a complete phony, enjoy your $80.00 bottle of wine thinking it's magically morphed into a better tasting wine than a $40.00 bottle.
> 
> Still by far the dumbest load of tripe I've read in this thread.


Care to rephrase this in English? On second thought, I'm sure it's not worth the effort.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Yawn...
> 
> Right about now you're wondering why the guy who took the high with me the other day when I resorted to completely unwarranted personal attacks didn't stand for my arrogance, insults, and bullying today? And right you are, owned and shown to be a complete phony, enjoy your $80.00 bottle of wine thinking it's magically morphed into a better tasting wine than a $40.00 bottle.
> 
> Still by far the dumbest load of tripe I've read in this thread.


Which wines are we talking about here?

I'd say it would be an absurd assumption to say that there is no way an $80 dollar bottle of wine can be better than a $40 bottle. An equally absurd assumption is to say that any watch over $500 is overpriced.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Yawn...
> 
> Right about now you're wondering why the guy who took the high with me the other day when I resorted to completely unwarranted personal attacks didn't stand for my arrogance, insults, and bullying today? And right you are, owned and shown to be a complete phony, enjoy your $80.00 bottle of wine thinking it's magically morphed into a better tasting wine than a $40.00 bottle.
> 
> Still by far the dumbest load of tripe I've read in this thread.


I think it's entirely right to suggest that the best (or even the average) $80 bottle will be better than the best (or even average) $40 bottle, which will in turn be better than the best (or even average) $10 bottle. That, of course doesn't imply that _all_ $80 bottles will be better than _all_ $10 bottles.

I do wish I was a bit more knowledgeable about wine. I don't buy that wine tasting is a bunk science. I know this is a (somewhat) groundless argument, but the number of very sophisticated, classy, intelligent people that I know, who love wine, enjoy the subtleties of it, and spend an awful lot of money on some pretty expensive bottles and feel that it's worth it. Groundless? Absolutely. But as anecdotal evidence I have to believe that they're enjoying something (beyond the status of drinking nice wine).


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> I think it's entirely right to suggest that the best (or even the average) $80 bottle will be better than the best (or even average) $40 bottle, which will in turn be better than the best (or even average) $10 bottle. That, of course doesn't imply that _all_ $80 bottles will be better than _all_ $10 bottles.
> 
> I do wish I was a bit more knowledgeable about wine. I don't buy that wine tasting is a bunk science. I know this is a (somewhat) groundless argument, but the number of very sophisticated, classy, intelligent people that I know, who love wine, enjoy the subtleties of it, and spend an awful lot of money on some pretty expensive bottles and feel that it's worth it. Groundless? Absolutely. But as anecdotal evidence I have to believe that they're enjoying something (beyond the status of drinking nice wine).


It is not at all accurate to believe your typical 80 buck bottle will be better than a 40 buck bottle. And it's certainly not any hard and fast rule at all. At that point it's simply availability, branding, and prestige. It has almost nothing to do with taste.

Some 80 buck bottles may be better some 40 buck bottles will be better, really that simple, and most of it is completely subjective. Read up a bit on it, sommeliers can predict wine quality based on price past a certain point about as well as you can.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> I think it's entirely right to suggest that the best (or even the average) $80 bottle will be better than the best (or even average) $40 bottle


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right. How about $800 bottle? Or $8000? Is there a limit beyond which the higher price doesn't reflect any improvement of quality whatsoever?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

just so we're clear here, wine and its pricing has little to do with watches and theirs.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right. How about $800 bottle? Or $8000? Is there a limit beyond which the higher price doesn't reflect any improvement of quality whatsoever?


Yes, there is possibly a limit. The issues are:

How to measure something subjective like 'improvement in quality'?

How to assign a value and limit to the point of no returns? Your view is not necessarily the same as everybody elses, so to take an absolute standpoint either way is ridiculous.

An $8000 bottle of wine is an $8000 bottle of wine. YOU may think it's overpriced and pass, but if somebody buys it, then THEY believe it is. Who is correct in this? This is the same argument repated over and over.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> An $8000 bottle of wine is an $8000 bottle of wine. YOU may think it's overpriced and pass, but if somebody buys it, then THEY believe it is. Who is correct in this? This is the same argument repated over and over.


So you think it's not a scam to sell a $20 Chinese made Reichenbach watch to a naive buyer for $2000?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

why are you still comparing those watches to Rolex, Patek and Seiko?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> why are you still comparing those watches to Rolex, Patek and Seiko?


Because some of you are arguing that as long as someone is paying the price, it obviously isn't overpriced. So that would mean that $2000 for a Reichenbach is not too much - which is hard to swallow.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> So you think it's not a scam to sell a $20 Chinese made Reichenbach watch to a naive buyer for $2000?


Legally, as long as the buyer is not decieved, no. Ethically, yes but that doesn't come into it.

Selling a $20 bottle of wine disgused as an $8000 bottle is illegal. Selling a bottle of wine for $8000 is not.

At the risk of getting dragged further into this, you seem perturbed that people spend money on such things. It is their money, you can politely advise them agianst it, but in the end it is not your business.

Companies set a profit margin that allows them to grow as a business. It is not simply: cost of raw materials and labour plus $1 for profit (forgive me for paraphrasing to the extreme to get my point across).

If people won't pay that price the company has to re-assess the price or go out of business. These Swiss watch-makers, European wine makers and Italian sportscar manufacturers have been around for a very long time.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

I like most whiskies and dislike most whiskeys.

I have paid $50 for a bomber of beer, honestly the best beer I have ever had, but it had been properly bottle aged for quite some time.

I have had quite a few $200+ drams and several over $500 some I liked, some I loved and some I didn't.

I am not missing meals and I am meeting my obligations and in the end I can't take it with me. 

I spend my disposable income on things I like and help we enjoy life and honestly don't care who thinks I overpay. It would be hard for anyone to enjoy their life more than me, as much sure but more I doubt it. As I type I am sitting on the lake with a couple of lines in the water. Shortly I will be grilling up some lake trout on the boat for me and the dog. I need to check the weather but since the wife is out of town at a conference me and the dog may just drop anchor and stay the night, perfect 77 right now so I probably won't even have to fire up the AC to sleep. Did I overpay on the things that made my day possible? I am sure in some people eyes I did but to me days like today are priceless. For the record my dog agrees, and she is a contrarian. 

Taken Monday night as we headed back from the lake running down the bayou to the house.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> So you think it's not a scam to sell a $20 Chinese made Reichenbach watch to a naive buyer for $2000?


Red Herring. You can get the watch from "fair" retailers for MUCH less. The majority of sellers is selling the same $8,000 bottle of wine for $80 then THAT is a scam. If the market price is $8.000 then it isn't overpriced.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Ace McLoud said:


> Selling a $20 bottle of wine disgused as an $8000 bottle is illegal. Selling a bottle of wine for $8000 is not.


Nice reply.
The problem is that guy seems unwilling to accept that a Seiko Alpinist isn't a Grand Seiko which isn't a Patek.
I would've thought that concept was obvious but alas, no.

I'm not even sure he's even conceded that there is _a lot_ more work involved in making even a basic Patek than there is in a Grand Seiko.
I recall something where he grossly underestimated what it takes to finish and decorate a watch movement to the Geneva (ok... Patek) seal but that just leads to another question of the cost of that work.

_That_ is where my question regarding the high end watches comes into it; I don't have much personal value in decoration beyond the _sort-of-standard_ stuff. I appreciate it as an art but in a watch, I have a limit as to what I want/like.
That of course, is a totally different discussion as to what it costs to perform that extra decoration. It has little/no value/worth to me but that isn't to say I don't understand why it can be expensive.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> It is their money, you can politely advise them agianst it, but in the end it is not your business.


That's exactly what I'm doing. Politely suggesting that Nautilus is not worth $30,000. As a precise mechanical timing device it's worth let's say $5000 (based on the price of a Grand Seiko), and all the additional polishing and engraving is worth $10,000, based on educated guess about required labour and monthly salary of an expert watchmaker. And if you still want to pay additional $15,000 for the brand, be my guest, it's your money. All numbers are of course pulled out of thin air

That was the whole point of this thread. The OP asked how does the *quality *of the Grand Seiko compare to the big three. IMHO the quality as a precise mechanical timing device is more or less the same (or even better), for a fraction of a price, and the added visual quality of Swiss watches is, again IMHO, grossly overrated (in terms of its price anyway).

And than all hell broke loose - how can I even think about the Patek not being so much better than the Grand Seiko as the difference in price suggests. Because we all know that a $8000 bottle of wine must surely be immeasurably better than $100 bottle of wine;-)


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> . . . . I spend my disposable income on things I like and help we *enjoy life and honestly don't care who thinks I overpay*. *It would be hard for anyone to enjoy their life more than me, as much* *sure but more I doubt it*. As I type I am sitting on the lake with a couple of lines in the water. Shortly I will be grilling up some lake trout on the boat for me and the dog. I need to check the weather but since the wife is out of town at a conference me and the dog may just drop anchor and stay the night, perfect 77 right now so I probably won't even have to fire up the AC to sleep. Did I overpay on the things that made my day possible? I am sure in some people eyes I did but to me days like today are priceless. For the record my dog agrees, and she is a contrarian.


Well said, and I think I could give you a good run on the enjoyment part. My pet peeve is when I hear discouragement against spending my money the way I choose. Will never ask "do you think it's worth it?", because if I have it or think I want it, it is def worth it to me, which is really all that matters (to me) . . .


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

ilitig8 said:


> I like most whiskies and dislike most whiskeys.
> 
> I have paid $50 for a bomber of beer, honestly the best beer I have ever had, but it had been properly bottle aged for quite some time.
> 
> ...


To save space I didn't include the pictures, but combined with the text this is one of my all-time favorite WUS posts. Not only does it make a ton of sense, but it kind of felt like I was on vacation there for a moment.

P.S. This thread has been one of the grand experiments in my four years on WUS. Some folks may be tired of it and I understand why, but I thank the moderators for keeping this weird thing alive. Special thanks must also be extended to Okapi001. His has been one of the least nuanced, least persuasive arguments I've encountered on WUS, but credit him for sticking it out in the face of all the guff he's received (myself being one of the worst offenders). Without him, none of this would have been possible and I wouldn't have had a chance to read post 717 which, as I've stated above, is one of the all time greats.

I for one would like to talk about Arabian Horses next.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> *That's exactly what I'm doing.*
> And than all hell broke loose - how can I even think about the Patek not being so much better than the Grand Seiko as the difference in price suggests. *Because we all know *that a $8000 bottle of wine must surely be immeasurably better than $100 bottle of wine;-)


uh, no that's not exactly what you're doing when you include the "because *we all* know" as part of your personal opinion . . . .


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Nice reply.
> The problem is that guy seems unwilling to accept that a Seiko Alpinist isn't a Grand Seiko which isn't a Patek.
> I would've thought that concept was obvious but alas, no. One of his problems. Different watches, different companies with different operating costs, overheads, economies of scale, pricing policies and most importantly: SOLD INTO DIFFERENT MARKETS.
> 
> ...


I've added my responses in red to your post.

I should have added: If one store is selling the same wine for $8000 and another is selling it for $20, where are you going to buy the wine? If Okapi can get a Nautilus for $500 then I say snap one up, just tell me where I can find one when the market price is so much more?


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

Okapi001 said:


> You are all hidding your false arguments behind some semantics, and when I ask what is the correct English term for the price of the $2000 Reichenbach, or a $2000 OEM bracelet, all is silent. In all of this thread you all together were not able to produce one single valid argument, all you can do is attacking ad persona and calling names. You are all full of prejudices and biases and obviously not able to disscus in a civilised manner. Shame on you!


The price of a Reichenbach quartz varies from $2100 to $1250.

Given that these do not have the ridiculous statement "$3000 MSRP, but on sale (permanently) for $59.95", I would say that they are priced at a point where they sell....[i.e., not "overpriced")


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> That's consumerism, not oenology. The real advantage of being expert (or having a friend that is an expert, in my case) is to know which $25 wine is as good or better than some overhyped $80 wine.


This is actually a fair statement. And it also applies to watches. By any given set of measures, some products are a better value than others. The danger is extrapolating one's set of measures to everyone, especially when it lacks expertise.

We have to be careful here. There are many who approach a recognized masterpiece of modern art with the statement "my 5-year-old could have painted that." It's funny (well, maybe the first thousand times), but the plain fact is that their kid didn't paint it--and really it looks nothing like the crayon drawing magnetized to the fridge. We can think the experts are hoodwinking wealthy collectors into buying the stuff, but it turns out that many of those experts, and many art lovers, some of whom are wealthy, are genuinely moved by it. When we announce that our 5-year-old could have done it, we are invalidating others' measure of quality without even understanding it.

So, we have two choices. 1.) We can recognize that we just don't "get it" and let those who do (even if we suspect they are deluding themselves) pursue their interests without our unsophisticated judgmentalism, or 2.) we can consult someone whose expertise we recognize and let them lead us to pieces that reflect values we haven't yet developed that are a particularly good value.

If we conclude (without having developed the expertise) that everyone who likes what we don't is delusional, then we may be right, but we are more likely to keep ourselves ignorant.

My suspicion is that both approaches, pursued with an open mind, will eventually move us into the category of those who do "get it." Both are ways of following the adage, "fake it 'till you make it." We depend on the expert friend to choose the great $25 bottles, but eventually we find we can choose them for ourselves. We might even decide we can choose an $80 bottle of wine that is as good as a $200 bottle.

Or, we can pursue a different hobby. Nobody is obligated to own decent watches, or drink good wine.

Rick "avoiding arbitrary judgments" Denney


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

lysanderxiii said:


> The price of a Reichenbach quartz varies from $2100 to $1250.
> 
> Given that these do not have the ridiculous statement "$3000 MSRP, but on sale (permanently) for $59.95", I would say that they are priced at a point where they sell....[i.e., not "overpriced")


And that makes it OK?

There are a couple of threads about Reichenbachs.
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/does-anyone-have-any-info-about-brand-called-reichenbach-823120.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/reichenbach-watches-842435.html

And they are on the blacklist.
Watches Blacklist


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> That's exactly what I'm doing. Politely suggesting that Nautilus is not worth $30,000. As a precise mechanical timing device it's worth let's say $5000 (based on the price of a Grand Seiko), and all the additional polishing and engraving is worth $10,000, based on educated guess about required labour and monthly salary of an expert watchmaker. And if you still want to pay additional $15,000 for the brand, be my guest, it's your money. All numbers are of course pulled out of thin air Not sure if joking, becuase all that IS pulled out of thin air.
> 
> That was the whole point of this thread. The OP asked how does the *quality *of the Grand Seiko compare to the big three. IMHO the quality as a precise mechanical timing device is more or less the same (or even better) This can be measured, yes, and GS is a remarkably engineered watch, but is not necessarily true across the board. It would have to be compared on a watch per watch basis. , for a fraction of a price, and the added visual quality of Swiss watches is, again IMHO, grossly overrated (in terms of its price anyway). IMHO is the key here, and should have been used earlier. This can't be proven definatively either way, although the sales of Swiss watches (didn't you say 50,000 PP watches per year) would suggest you are in the minority on this.
> 
> And than all hell broke loose - how can I even think about the Patek not being so much better than the Grand Seiko as the difference in price suggests. Because we all know that a $8000 bottle of wine must surely be immeasurably better than $100 bottle of wine;-) Who's saying immeasurably?And who says the difference is scalable to price. I can't see anybody argueing that. One of the few people who's owned both say what we're reasonably assuming: The PP is slightly better than the GS. We've even tried to give reasons for the difference. If it is discovered that the cost of a Patek Philippe watch is $20 and they've been made China then I'll be the first to apologise.


More responses in red.

Another thing to note, the price of luxury swiss watches (and also, as a happy co-incidence, wine) is being driven up in part by the Chinese creating a large demand for these products. There tends to be a perception of these being high quality and desirable. There is also understandably some preference for European over Japanese goods for cultural reasons.

The Japanese however, still generally have a more insular view (again a generalisation, but take the sales of western electonics (apart from apple) or media as an example). Therfore Grand Seiko was created for the Japanese Market, to give an option for consumers to purchase locally made items, and this is reflected in the pricing.

If suddenly there was a massive demand from mainland China for GS watches, the price would no doubt increase.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Mike_Dowling said:


> Exactly, but 124Spider believes because he paid $80.00 for a bottle it's twice as good as any $40.00 bottle, of course that's ridiculous.


That is not what anyone said. The law of diminishing returns has been invoked repeatedly. But I still don't see watches cheaper than pushing five figures that show the kind of finishing that the pictures of Patek movements in this thread have shown. My Zenith certainly doesn't. Nor does any picture I've seen of a Grand Seiko movement.

Rick "hand-burnished anglage (to name one aspect of haute finissage) might be too expensive for any given person, but it's not fiction" Denney


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

I think quite a few people are still confusing "overpriced" with "more than I am willing to pay"....

If a wine sells for $800 dollars a bottle, consistently, it is not overpriced, even if it tastes like vinegar.

If you think a $5 bottle of MD 50/50 is good enough, that's on you, but it does not make anything more expensive "overpriced".....


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> This can't be proven definatively either way, although the sales of Swiss watches (didn't you say 50,000 PP watches per year) would suggest you are in the minority on this.


I'm most certainly not in the minority Because I'm pretty sure that for anyone who thinks that Swiss watches are not overrated there are 10 that think they are.


----------



## oak1971 (Aug 19, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Because some of you are arguing that as long as someone is paying the price, it obviously isn't overpriced. So that would mean that $2000 for a Reichenbach is not too much - which is hard to swallow.


What's hard to swallow is your continued use of straw-men and logical fallacies to make your absurd arguments.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

so wait:



Okapi001 said:


> As a precise mechanical timing device it's worth let's say $5000 (based on the price of a Grand Seiko), and all the additional polishing and engraving is worth $10,000, based on educated guess about required labour and monthly salary of an expert watchmaker.


are you basically now saying that, ignoring the guestimated figures for now, that there _is_ more work in the Patek that accounts for its higher price over the Grand Seiko?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> The law of diminishing returns has been invoked repeatedly.


And in virtualy all cases inappropriately. Because it was assumed that more expensive item is better, even if only ever slightly so. It's not true - more expensive item can just as easily be worse, and without a proper and objective analysis we cannot know that.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm most certainly not in the minority Because I'm pretty sure that for anyone who thinks that Swiss watches are not overrated there are 10 that think they are.


I was talking about sales, not what people on WUS think.

More straw-man arguments: You're grouping all Swiss manufacturers together, from the bespoke in-house manufacturers which seem so be held in very high regard, to the companies that put an off-the-shelf, mostly Chinese made movement in a steel case and charge thousands for this 'Swiss' watch.

Not seeing a 1:10 ratio either, certainly not in this thread.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> so wait:
> are you basically now saying that, ignoring the guestimated figures for now, that there _is_ more work in the Patek that accounts for its higher price over the Grand Seiko?


I have never denied that there is more work in the Patek. But the difference in the price is much higher than the added labour should account for. Not to mention that it can be argued that all that added labour contributes precious little (or nothing at all) to the quality of the watch.


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I have never denied that there is more work in the Patek.


I'm not sure why you would even concede that, does anyone have any confirmation a Patek takes more work to complete than a Grand Seiko? I can't imagine anyone here can verify that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> Well, I have officially been schooled tonight. After retiring the thread for the evening I got a call from the friend who owns the GS I had mentioned I had looked over back when the thread was young and relevant. After we covered the business he called about I mentioned this discussion and the based on his interest discussed the thread. He is a 49% business, 50% family and 1% eatin', poopin' and sleepin' kinda guy so spening time on internet forums just isn't in his mindset but I apparently woke something up. He first words of response were why in the hell were we talking about GS and the Nautilus, it makes no sense. I suggested it morphed that way and I suppose it was based on price. He slammed my intelligence for a couple of minutes and threatened to revoke my watch cognoscenti card and commenced elucidating me. He proffered the correct comparison would be a GS SBW046 vs a Patek 5196r. Me: OK slow down what was that Seiko number again, I don't know the GS line. Him: Really, you could have fooled me. (dripping with sarcasm). Him: the 46 is a central second three hander in a rose gold case for about $18k, the Patek is a sub second three hander in a rose gold case for about $23k. There isn't a hairs breath between the two watches in terms of quality, the are both elegant and stunning but in slightly different ways. The only difference is style and you drop less coin up from with the Seiko, wear them 5 years and sell them and the Patek will cost you several thousand less to own over the time, maybe $2k if you figure the opportunity cost of the money and you actually find someone in the US that wants that specific GS. Go back and tell the interwebs they are the same just different. Me: OK but what about the Nautilus? Him: That my friend is a far lengthier discussion best done over your wife's crawfish etouffee but just keep in mind there are certain designs in the world you pay a premium for, why do pretty actresses get paid more than the plain ones even if they are just as good at acting. Me: Uh OK thanks. So what do I owe you? Him: Don't worry I'll screw you outta it later. I am pretty sure he hung up on me then, his cell usually doesn't drop out at home and he ends about 25% of our conversations in that manner.
> 
> It may sound stilted but this it pretty much exactly how our conversation went, and frankly more or less like every other conversation we have, it always ends with somebody's balls kicked up near their chin.
> 
> Take it for what it is just another opinion but from a fairly thoughtful watch guy, in the end it makes a lot of sense, I haven't seen the GS in question but once I looked at it on the web I agree with the comparison, though I am certainly at a disadvantage since I have never seen this GS.


I don't normally, actually I never have quoted my own post on a forum BUT I really would like to get Okapi's (and anyone else's opinion) on what my friend said. It would seem the numbers on like for like are pretty close, very similar to what you see in Japanese luxury cars vs German luxury cars for example.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Swiss knife:


Japanese knife:


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I'm not sure why you would even concede that, does anyone have any confirmation a Patek takes more work to complete than a Grand Seiko? I can't imagine anyone here can verify that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.


Yes, but it doesn't hurt my argument if it does and it can also be assumed on the basis of all that anglaged edges in the movement.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> It would seem the numbers on like for like are pretty close


that's what I said but that got lost in the posting (I'm assuming; I mean, it could've been deliberately ignored I suppose...)

Seiko (5)
Seiko
Grand Seiko
Credor

like for like, across the various price levels, the pricing of them are all pretty similar to the Swiss equivalents.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

drunken monkey said:


> when you get above a certain price range, the cost is often a reflection of the availability of the product.


And it's resale value among collectors. For taste alone, Screaming Eagle is not worth the asking price, but it IS excellent wine in most vintages and they will get the asking price due to the market forces that prevail in that particular tasting/collecting arena. In that segment ( defined, simply as wines in the triple and quadruple digit price range ) exclusivity is a vital component of the value proposition.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I have never denied that there is more work in the Patek. But the difference in the price is much higher than the added labour should account for. Not to mention that it can be argued that all that added labour contributes precious little (or nothing at all) to the quality of the watch.


The question is..we all really don't get where u r getting the cost of labor/creation from...to say with such certain tones that they are only worth x amount n overcharged by y.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> I don't normally, actually I never have quoted my own post on a forum BUT I really would like to get Okapi's (and anyone else's opinion) on what my friend said. It would seem the numbers on like for like are pretty close, very similar to what you see in Japanese luxury cars vs German luxury cars for example.


What can I say? Your friend confirms that the quality of the Grand Seiko is equal to the Patek, for $5000 less in one particular case. And in case of Nautilus he is invoking design which is a matter of taste. If you are lucky, you prefer the Seiko's design, if you are not, you prefer "overpriced" Nautilus. And than you have to decide for yourself if the design is really worth $25,000. If it is really the design of the Nautilus that you like and want, not the prestige that comes with the brand (and the price tag), you can always opt for a homage.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And than all hell broke loose - how can I even think about the Patek not being so much better than the Grand Seiko as the difference in price suggests. Because we all know that a $8000 bottle of wine must surely be immeasurably better than $100 bottle of wine;-)


Possibly your biggest mistake, comparing two watches from different price brackets. If you'd have said, for example, Bell and Ross, I'd be inclined to agree. Neither of us would be right, however.



Okapi001 said:


> Swiss knife:
> 
> Japanese knife:


What does that even mean? I don't see your point, or have you lost interest and are genuinely trolling now?


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> What can I say? Your friend confirms that the quality of the Grand Seiko is equal to the Patek, for $5000 less in one particular case. And in case of Nautilus he is invoking design which is a matter of taste. If you are lucky, you prefer the Seiko's design, if you are not, you prefer "overpriced" Nautilus. And than you have to decide for yourself if the design is really worth $25,000. If it is really the design of the Nautilus that you like and want, not the prestige that comes with the brand (and the price tag), you can always opt for a homage.


Yeah, but is that *all* his friend said? I don't think it was. Did you read the post? It made perfect sense to me, but what do I know?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> What does that even mean? I don't see your point, or have you lost interest and are genuinely trolling now?


That's an illustration of different philosophies. Seiko put most of its efforts in functionaly most important parts of the watch - in the accuracy of the movement and in the visibility of the dial and hands. Swiss watchmakers put a lot of (unnecessary) efforts in polishing parts of the movement that nobody see.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I'm not sure why you would even concede that, does anyone have any confirmation a Patek takes more work to complete than a Grand Seiko? I can't imagine anyone here can verify that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.


I don't think without factory information you can get any kind of hour vs hour comparison BUT it is clear from pictures of the movement and cases the low end Patek watches have more finishing, both in amount and in difficulty of the particular finishes. One that stands out is the amount of anglage. For an analogous situation: I can walk into a room in a new house and determine quickly when one has more trim carpenter time in it. Lets assume both have the same high quality of work, the scarf joints are invisible and the trim is completely paint ready. If one has a 6 piece crown, picture moulding, chair rail, two piece base, quarter round, multi-piece window and door caps etc and the other has a simple crown, base, and something like an MC100 around the windows and doors I know one took longer than the other. I can't quantify it without some serious thought (since I know the trade) but it is easy to tell with a high degree of certainty which took longer. This assumes craftsmen that work at generally the same pace. Note this example is hyperbolic to make the point but particularly the movements in the Pateks show an significant extra amount of finishing and some of the finishes the GS watches lack are some of the most time intensive.


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> Swiss knife:
> 
> Japanese knife:


Tell you what: Figure out how to compare something as (seemingly) simple as knives and then we'll move onto watches. My first piece of advice in your new endeavor is to start with similar objects...

...No! Wait! Let's just stay right here! You've captured the argument perfectly! You're comparing what I'm assuming is a highly refined, no-expense-spared item that's finished by the hands of expert craftsmen with a quality mass produced item that sells for a lot less. Your conclusion seems to be that the quality mass produced item is inferior to the one influenced by human expertise. I've seen this very position being argued effectively before, now if I could only remember where...


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> Possibly your biggest mistake, comparing two watches from different price brackets. If you'd have said, for example, Bell and Ross, I'd be inclined to agree. Neither of us would be right, however.


No, I quite deliberately chose two watches with comparable technical characteristics but different price ranges. A $25 bottle of wine can be better than $8000 bottle of wine. But I do realise that it's sometimes hard to accept that much higher price doesn't necessarily means better quality. Don't forget - this thread is "*Quality *of Grand Seiko compared to ...". Not resale value, or design.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ljb187 said:


> Your conclusion seems to be that the quality mass produced item is inferior to the one influenced by human expertise.


No, my conclusion is that one is perfectly made functional knife, without some insanely complicated engravings and added complications.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> What can I say? Your friend confirms that the quality of the Grand Seiko is equal to the Patek, for $5000 less in one particular case. And in case of Nautilus he is invoking design which is a matter of taste. If you are lucky, you prefer the Seiko's design, if you are not, you prefer "overpriced" Nautilus. And than you have to decide for yourself if the design is really worth $25,000. If it is really the design of the Nautilus that you like and want, not the prestige that comes with the brand (and the price tag), you can always opt for a homage.


So if you accept the first part of his premise then I would guess you accept his second part that it is cheaper to own the Patek due to its significant advantage in resell? It should also put to rest that one can compare any Patek to the lower priced GS UNLESS you are suggesting that the GS in question is also sold at near the price of a watch you consider ridiculously priced.

He did not illustrate to me the design was the only part of the Nautilus price difference, he clearly let me know there was much more to the subject, when we have that discussion I will pass his points on.

As for an homage, I respect artisanship too much to support what is in my mind basically a stolen idea or design.

You really go out on a limb when you ask "if the design is really worth $25,000" because that would be arguing the movement and the watch as a whole were basically worthless and you are paying everything for design.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> You really go out on a limb when you ask "if the design is really worth $25,000" because that would be arguing the movement and the watch as a whole were basically worthless and you are paying everything for design.


If $5000 (30,000 - 25,000) is worthless to you , take a look at the price tag of Grand Seiko.


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

*My senses regarding participation in this thread tell me...*

A picture says a 1000 words...


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

You do know that those sort of knives need to be oiled, rusts if you don't, reacts with anything vaguely acidic and can only really Be sharpened on a flat stone, right?

Nice bit of old school craftsmanship but hardly a modern day tool.
Sure they're pretty but something made from S30V or X50CrMo15 is infinitely better suited to most people (although not even vaguely cheap...)


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Don't forget - this thread is "*Quality *of Grand Seiko compared to ...". Not resale value, or design.


That is an excellent point, quality is the thing you have admitted to having the least personal experience with regarding the watches in question (read as none). So since you have no real clue about the comparative quality you made it about price and value since you figured you could get a foothold by arguing about the vast price difference. The problem was your arguments were useless since without any real understanding of the products you were discussing the majority of the points didn't make sense to people that have a more objective understanding of the two products. Their points equally were baffling to you since you have no personal perspective to overlay them on. If this argument had been framed around Seiko SARB watches and say Tissot Powermatics I might have an opinion but I would recognize it had very little weight considering my complete lack of time with either watch.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> So if you accept the first part of his premise then I would guess you accept his second part that it is cheaper to own the Patek due to its significant advantage in resell?.


I'm only talking about the quality and price/performance value, not about the resale value, which is completely different and quite unrelated issue.


----------



## mikeylacroix (Apr 20, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> No, I quite deliberately chose two watches with comparable technical characteristics but different price ranges. A $25 bottle of wine can be better than $8000 bottle of wine. But I do realise that it's sometimes hard to accept that much higher price doesn't necessarily means better quality. Don't forget - this thread is "*Quality *of Grand Seiko compared to ...". Not resale value, or design.


what is your definition of *Quality *as far this discussion goes?
would help to if u clarify/rank how important in the scheme of things say functionality vs design vs production numbers etc is to u...
(genuine question)


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> If $5000 (30,000 - 25,000) is worthless to you , take a look at the price tag of Grand Seiko.


Last time I checked the 5711 was a touch over $26k retail. Now there are "slightly" more expensive Nautilus watches if you prefer to spend 6 figures.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> No, I quite deliberately chose two watches with comparable technical characteristics but different price ranges. A $25 bottle of wine can be better than $8000 bottle of wine. But I do realise that it's sometimes hard to accept that much higher price doesn't necessarily means better quality. *Don't forget - this thread is "Quality of Grand Seiko compared to ...". Not resale value, or design.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> If that were true, this thread would have ended when an owner said the Grand Seiko was of a slightly lesser quality than some of his other, more expensive watches.
> 
> ...


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> No, my conclusion is that one is perfectly made functional knife, without some insanely complicated engravings and added complications.


Oh. In that case, here's a goose and gander thing for you:

Japanese Watch:








Swiss Watch:


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm only talking about the quality and price/performance value, not about the resale value, which is completely different and quite unrelated issue.


You pointed out that quality was what the thread was about. You don't have any real experience with the quality of the watches in question. Resale value is unrelated, just as unrelated as you price/performance ratio but it is of REAL importance to most of those that will actually BUY these watches.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mikeylacroix said:


> what is your definition of *Quality *as far this discussion goes?
> would help to if u clarify/rank how important in the scheme of things say functionality vs design vs production numbers etc is to u...
> (genuine question)


Accuracy (together with reliability) of the movement is the single most important factor. 1 sec/day better accuracy is for me worth more than all the anglage. Than comes finish of the dial, hands, case, bracelet - in that order. Perpetual calendar is a big bonus (if the watch has date). Power reserve is non-issue with automatics.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> You don't have any real experience with the quality of the watches in question.


And I haven't been on the Moon either. So what?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> And I haven't been on the Moon either. So what?


so all you can do is "guess" (probably erroneously, but I couldn't say cause I've not been to the moon either) about moon stuff at best . . . just like you're doing here re:watches . . . .


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> If that were true, this thread would have ended when an owner said the Grand Seiko was of a slightly lesser quality than some of his other, more expensive watches.


Well, another one have GS and Patek and his conclusion is that "_There isn't a hairs breath between the two watches in terms of quality_, " So now what?


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And I haven't been on the Moon either. So what?


You wouldn't have much standing to discuss how the "soil" on the moon compares to the "soil" on top of Chimborazo as you run it through your fingers would you?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> You wouldn't have much standing to discuss how the "soil" on the moon compares to the "soil" on top of Chimborazo as you run it through your fingers would you?


Luckyly for me OP is not asking about the feeling of the Grand Seiko on the wrist.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Well, another one have GS and Patek and his conclusion is that "_There isn't a hairs breath between the two watches in terms of quality_, " So now what?


Being specific it was the most expensive GS vs the least expensive Patek with a pretty small price difference percentage wise. The vast majority of people I have seen don't buy that GS. In general the real GS discussion is based on their sub-10K watches, and the $18K GS is a much different animal than the majority if Grand Seikos purchased. If one just wants to illustrate Seiko makes some watches that are higher quality than some Pateks, that is pretty easy, Seiko makes some serious haute horology pieces but that isn't what the OP was asking about.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Ace McLoud said:


> The 'functional knife' probably cost a whole lot more, just because of the finishing. Both do the same job. dare I suggest it may be overpriced?


Typically, the best damascus (carbon) steel knives, are around £300 and as I mentioned before, aren't really suitable for an every day kitchen as they require a rather strict regime until it has developed patina (or you can keep it polished and oiled and make sure to wash after contact with anything acidic and prepare to give everything acidic you cut with it a water bath after cutting).
Not something for the average home cook.

On the other hand, the best modern steel knives require no extra care and typically costs £150-200 and it doesn't need any special treatment.

The best modern Ceramic knives sits in-between, price-wise, at around £250 but has the best performance properties - non porous, zero reactivity, no special maintenance required although you can't be as hard on the blade as you can with the modern steel so wooden or plastic boards only and no smashing garlic.

The Japanese blades are more expensive because of the craft, not because of the performance. They used to have a different grind to the blade that gave them a different cutting feel that you would notice most when cutting something that typically sticks to the blade like a big a joint of meat but a few of the modern makers have started producing knives with a European style grind too so blade grind isn't exclusive to any knife.

Not entirely sure how a kitchen knife is compared to a tool knife though.
Is it that hard to compare like for like?
Why are you still ignoring Credor watches?


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> and the $18K GS is a much different animal than the majority if Grand Seikos purchased.


And how exactly is much different (quality wise)? Does it have much better movement? Some other added qualities, besides golden case?


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> This was it for me, when monkey in another thread said that $500 for a steel bracelet is "a bit too much" - without knowing anything about that bracelet. One can only imagine what would he said about a $2000 bracelet. So have fun, I'm out of this hypocritical disscusion.


Ah, would that that were true....


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

You are right - all that wine distracted me. Bye.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Luckyly for me OP is not asking about the feeling of the Grand Seiko on the wrist.


There was a point and time when I thought I could experience the world though the written word and with pictures. As I grew I learned there is no comparison between that and personal experience. One is seeing life through the imperfect lens of another, the other is feeling the searing of the wind, screaming of the lungs and delusion of the brain when nearing the summit of Annapurna and reveling in the moment when there are no longer another step up. Broaden your experience grab a loupe head to the ADs, I guarantee you will return with some defensible points. I doubt you will decide to come home with a Patek and your preference for GS may even be stronger but you will have a better understanding of what the fuss is all about regarding both watches.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> I'm only talking about the quality and price/performance value, not about the resale value, which is completely different and quite unrelated issue.


Not unrelated at all. Not even a little. Comedy gold. I love you man! You are nothing if not entertaining.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> And how exactly is much different (quality wise)? Does it have much better movement? Some other added qualities, besides golden case?


I don't personally know, what was relayed to me is it was rather significant between it and the 4-6K GS models. I am at a disadvantage since I have never seen the watch in question and I am going on a short conversation, I may know more with the later longer discussion which may have to do since the dealers that I haunt have never had that watch in stock when I was there.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

The problem was his initial position; that Swiss watches were over-priced.
Just Swiss.

It took maybe 40 pages before he quietly acknowledged that Japanese watches might be equally over-priced. Even then it was only said grudgingly, something like "but if it were true".
As I said, all watches are over-priced so I was not really sure what his point was other to demonstrate that he is staunchly anti-Swiss, right down to his completely misuse of Japanese knife vs Swiss knife as analagous examples.
And of course, the constant refusal to compare like for like was completely mystifying.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> Typically, the best damascus (carbon) steel knives, are around £300 and as I mentioned before, aren't really suitable for an every day kitchen as they require a rather strict regime until it has developed patina (or you can keep it polished and oiled and make sure to wash after contact with anything acidic and prepare to give everything acidic you cut with it a water bath after cutting).
> Not something for the average home cook.
> 
> On the other hand, the best modern steel knives require no extra care and typically costs £150-200 and it doesn't need any special treatment.
> ...


Is this addresed to me?

I was making the point that if you could compare two dissimilar things, the Japanese knife would be more expensive due to the finishing (one excuse given for PP watches premium over GS). Both cut things to a subjectively similar degree. Therefore is the extra premuium worth it? This was exactly the arguement Okapi was using against the Nautilus, now being used to support Japanese vs Swiss watchmaking?

This whole thread is topsy turvey.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> And how exactly is much different (quality wise)? Does it have much better movement? Some other added qualities, besides golden case?


Perhaps you can explain to us what you think accounts for the price differential between your Seiko Alpinist and a Grand Seiko?


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Ace McLoud said:


> Is this addresed to me?
> 
> I was making the point that if you could compare two dissimilar things, the Japanese knife would be more expensive due to the finishing (one excuse given for PP watches premium over GS). Both cut things to a subjectively similar degree. Therefore is the extra premuium worth it? This was exactly the arguement Okapi was using agianst the Nautilus, now being used to support Japanese vs Swiss watchmaking?
> 
> This whole thread is topsy turvey.


Actually, I'm not sure who I was addressing.
It got to a point where I was addressing what was being said rather than who posted it. The knife thing was because someone questioned the price of the Japanese knife so I figured it might be worthwhile to give a brief summary of the differences between them in terms of their material and how they relate to the end user.

I know he said/implied that the simple Japanese knife was the perfect tool knife with no excess.
I just wanted to clarify that isn't strictly true either because it is far from perfect, especially if you compare like for like.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> Perhaps you can explain to us what you think accounts for the price differential between your Seiko Alpinist and a Grand Seiko?


I would think it's more or less self evident. More accurate and adjusted movement, more elaborately finished dial and hands and case.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> I just wanted to clarify that isn't strictly true either because it is far from perfect, especially if you compare like for like.


It is perfect (for its purpose). Just ask any sushi chef.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> It is perfect (for its purpose). Just ask any sushi chef.


and that means it is worth it even though for most other chefs, it is unsuitable?


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> I would think it's more or less self evident. More accurate and adjusted movement, more elaborately finished dial and hands and case.


If a more elaborately finished dial, hands, and case is justification for a substantial price differential, why isn't a more elaborately finished movement also justification for a price differential, since none of these actually affect performance. You also might like to know that the Grand Seiko standard for mean daily rate is -3/+5 sec/day, and the Patek Philippe seal standard is -3/+2 sec/day.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Accuracy (together with reliability) of the movement is the single most important factor. 1 sec/day better accuracy is for me worth more than all the anglage. .


Patek has a maximum cased variation span of 5 seconds, the GS hi-beat is 8 seconds. I do not know if Seiko's number is in case or not. If 1 second a day is really worth more than all the anglage then as I assume you have already concluded none of the watches in this thread are probably for you.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Okapi001 said:


> What can I say? Your friend confirms that the quality of the Grand Seiko is equal to the Patek, for $5000 less in one particular case.


No, he confirmed that one of the most expensive Grand Seikos was on a par with the very cheapest Patek. But did he have the back off the movement when he did so? And that $5000 was about 25%--at that level not that significant. What it _did_ confirm was that watches at approximately the same price (and 25% is approximate if we are comparing watches ranging from $500 to $30,000, as we have been doing) are comparable.

Please do not underestimate the _value_ of design. Whether or not it adds to the cost, it most definitely affects the value and therefore the price.

Rick "I. M. Pei charges higher fees for architecture than the guy down the street" Denney


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

drunken monkey said:


> The problem was his initial position; that Swiss watches were over-priced.
> Just Swiss.
> 
> It took maybe 40 pages before he quietly acknowledged that Japanese watches might be equally over-priced. Even then it was only said grudgingly, something like "but if it were true".
> ...


1) I never said that *only *Swiss watches are overpriced.
2) I never acknowledged, silent or otherwise, that Japanese watches might be *equally *overpriced. Credors are perhaps even more overpriced and Seiko 5s are surely much less overpriced, if at all. For all I know Seiko 5 for $50 might be even underpriced.


----------



## fjblair (Apr 24, 2009)

mattjmcd said:


> Not unrelated at all. Not even a little. Comedy gold. I love you man! You are nothing if not entertaining.


What are we missing? Please explain how they cannot be mutually exclusive properties.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> Rick "I. M. Pei charges higher fees for architecture than the guy down the street" Denney


But, do the Louvre Pyramids have anglage on the metal frames? :-d


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

ilitig8 said:


> Patek has a maximum cased variation span of 5 seconds, the GS hi-beat is 8 seconds. I do not know if Seiko's number is in case or not. If 1 second a day is really worth more than all the anglage then as I assume you have already concluded none of the watches in this thread are probably for you.


The Grand Seiko certification is performed on the uncase movement:

9S Mechanical | Grand Seiko | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION

It's clear that the appropriate point of comparison is the COSC certification, as opposed to the JLC 1000 Hour Control or the Patek Seal.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Mike_Dowling said:


> I'm not sure why you would even concede that, does anyone have any confirmation a Patek takes more work to complete than a Grand Seiko? I can't imagine anyone here can verify that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.


Here, quoted from a long-dead thread, are production labor values for a range of watch companies, unfortunately not including Grand Seiko (company/number of employees/production volume):

A. Lange & Sohne / 450 / <5,000
Audemar Piguet / 900 / 30,000
Bregeut / 500 / 25,000
Breitling / n/k / >200,000
Chronoswiss / 35 / <5000
Damasko / 22 / 1,000-1,500
Dornbluth / 5 / 150
Fortis / 30 / 20,000
Frederique Constant / 100 / 120,000
Glashutte Original / 350 / <10,000
H. Moser & Cie / 70 / 1500
IWC / 750 / 75,000
JLC / 1200 / >60,000
Longines / 600 / 600,000
Maurice Lacroix / 250 / 90,000
Mont Blank / c75 / 75,000
Nomos / c100/ n/k
Omega / n/k / 750,000
Panerai / 250 / 75,000
Patek Philippe / 1500 / 50,000
Rolex / 6,000 / 1,000,000
Sinn / 100 / 12,500
Stowa / 10 / 2500
Tag Heuer / 500 / 750,000
Tissot / 300 / 2.5m
Ulysee Nardin / c300 / >25,000
Vacheron Constantin / 700 / 20,000
Zenith / 200 / 25,000

Patek Philippe makes 50,000 watches with 1500 employees, for an average of 33 watches per employee per year. Vacheron is 29, and Audemars is 33. ALS is 11. This not the number of watchmakers, this is the total number of employees, from CEO to janitor.

JLC is 50.

Zenith is 125 watches per employee per year. Rolex is 167.

Tag-Heuer is 1500, for comparison (and that includes, of course, a lot of quartz watches).

There were no available statistics for Seiko, especially given that Seiko probably doesn't distinguish (at least for outsiders) the number devoted to Grand Seiko, even assuming that employees are that exclusive. It seems to me unlikely that it is as low as 30ish.

But with a few exceptions, more expensive watches are made by companies that make fewer watches per employee than less expensive watches. The data is a bit noisy and it is certainly not linear, but the trend is clear enough.

Of course, this affects cost only. Price is not determined by cost, but rather by the relationship betweend demand and supply. But the watches that command higher prices do indeed seem to require higher costs. I would not expect Grand Seiko to be any different. Given that Grand Seiko has been marketed mostly in Japan, where high-end Swiss watches are considered exotic, it is entirely likely that Seiko's pricing is driven by what Japanese buyers are willing to pay. That might explain the somewhat lower prices.

My own favorite brand, Ebel, did not sell well in the 2006-2011 period when they were aggressivelly filling out a portfolio of mechanical watches, some with their exclusive movement. They were indeed overpriced for their brand value in the U.S., and that's why they didn't sell well. (For example, they hoped to sell 100,000 mechanical watches in 2008, but actually only sold 30,000--an artifact of the downturn, probably.) So, the watches have been dumped in their outlet stores, selling for 25-35 cents on the dollar. The only way they can make money at those prices is to cut loose their AD network--they couldn't afford the cost of making the sale through authorized dealers. They had to adjust their cost to fit the price the market would bear. Bad for Ebel; good for Rick. Those were some fine $80 bottles of wine for $20.

Rick "wondering how conceding or defending a point about cost translates to price" Denney


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> I don't personally know, what was relayed to me is it was rather significant between it and the 4-6K GS models. I am at a disadvantage since I have never seen the watch in question and I am going on a short conversation, I may know more with the later longer discussion which may have to do since the dealers that I haunt have never had that watch in stock when I was there.


It's very unlikely that you'll get to see the sbgw046 (I'm assuming you are speaking of this from your earlier post) in the flesh. It's sold out a while back. Technically it's only different in terms of material and the movement used is the 9s64. Normally for the special release in precious metals, the movements are further refined to greater tolerance but not in this instance I think. The steel version is the sbgw047. I assure you that in the flesh, it's more sculpture than watch.

While I think your friend has made an excellent comparison, it is not without difficulties. That I've come to realise from some posts in this thread. You can't find evidence of meaningful anglage (be it machined or by hand) as Rick pointed out simply because it's not uniquely Japanese. Nonetheless, you will find completely smooth edges and wonderful (bordering on excessive engineering) to critical components which should overcome issues associated with precision and accuracy as well as reliability.

It's just a very different approach to watchmaking. Dufour has remarked that some have commented that his bridge design resembles Patek's and he goes on the clarify that's because of tradition. He further said that it would not be right only if it resembled the German or designs from other traditions. And rightly so. Similarly, GS are made to an exacting standard but again as per their ideals.

Honestly, I started collecting GS only a few months ago. I personally like going through brands and collecting a few models at a time (gives better perspective). Prior to actually getting one, I was apprehensive as well. It's the usual too much to spend on a Seiko mentality. However, I took a chance with the cheapest GS spring drive I could find as I was enamoured with the prospect of a watch with a simple spring and the accuracy of quartz. I have nothing but the highest praise for GS at the moment (I think I possibly acquired like 9 or 10 in the last 6 months; I don't rotate my watches much so I can't be sure).

For what it is and intended to be, it's a fine value and the quality is beyond reproach. Just don't go looking for fondue in a sushi bar. You'll be disappointed. Cheers!


----------



## lethaltoes (Mar 5, 2013)

mleok said:


> The Grand Seiko certification is performed on the uncase movement:
> 
> 9S Mechanical | Grand Seiko | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION
> 
> It's clear that the appropriate point of comparison is the COSC certification, as opposed to the JLC 1000 Hour Control or the Patek Seal.


Not so. The GS mechanical is adjusted to 6 pos and 3 temperatures. Also, there are the specially adjusted high beats in the 20k range in precious metals. Cheers!


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> You also might like to know that the Grand Seiko standard for mean daily rate is -3/+5 sec/day, and the Patek Philippe seal standard is -3/+2 sec/day.


Just to clarify this - Patek's standard is *5 seconds variation* (-3 to + 2 sec/day), Grand Seiko's standard is mean variation: *Less than 1.8 seconds/day*, maximum variation:* Less than 4.0 seconds/day.* The Seiko's -3/+5 sec/day is mean daily rate *in different positions*. And it's adjusted to 6 positions, versus 5 in Patek. So unless you have more detailed data about Patek's standard, Seiko wins

And these are all factory data. How about some independant tests?


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> And in virtualy all cases inappropriately. Because it was assumed that more expensive item is better, even if only ever slightly so. It's not true - more expensive item can just as easily be worse, and without a proper and objective analysis we cannot know that.


It's not objective analysis that's missing. It's agreement on what makes something "better". If your criteria for better doesn't match mine, then of course we will disagree.

The mistake you're making is believing that objective criteria exist and that you are using them. Both beliefs are false.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

lethaltoes said:


> Not so. The GS mechanical is adjusted to 6 pos and 3 temperatures. Also, there are the specially adjusted high beats in the 20k range in precious metals. Cheers!


What I meant is that the GS standard is aimed at the COSC standard as their point of comparison. Indeed, they compare themselves explicitly to the COSC standards, -3/+5 sec/day vs. -4/+6 sec/day, adjusted to 6 positions vs. 5 positions, and 3 temperatures vs. 2 temperatures. But in both cases, they're only performed on the uncased movements, unlike the JLC 1000 Hour Control or Patek Seal.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> I don't normally, actually I never have quoted my own post on a forum BUT I really would like to get Okapi's (and anyone else's opinion) on what my friend said. It would seem the numbers on like for like are pretty close, very similar to what you see in Japanese luxury cars vs German luxury cars for example.


Unless they finish the movement to a higher level in the gold GS, I'll take the PP.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Rdenney said:


> Patek Philippe makes 50,000 watches with 1500 employees, for an average of 33 watches per employee per year.


I based my geusstimate about one watchmaker-week for finishing Nautilus movement on these numbers. Not all Pateks require so much finishing, but there are also some that require much more than basic Nautilus, and of course not all employees are watchmakers.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> Just to clarify this - Patek's standard is *5 seconds variation* (-3 to + 2 sec/day), Grand Seiko's standard is mean variation: *Less than 1.8 seconds/day*, maximum variation:* Less than 4.0 seconds/day.* The Seiko's -3/+5 sec/day is mean daily rate *in different positions*. And it's adjusted to 6 positions, versus 5 in Patek. So unless you have more detailed data about Patek's standard, Seiko wins
> 
> And these are all factory data. How about some independant tests?


There's a dramatic difference between testing an uncased movement vs. a cased movement, and to me that is a far more important distinction between the Grand Seiko standard and the Patek Seal.

It's clear that the -3/+5 sec/day mean daily rate in different positions is intended to be compared to the -4/+6 sec/day requirement of the COSC standard, and the appropriate comparison in the Patek Seal standard is their -3/+2 sec/day accuracy standard. On the Patek website, we have,

PATEK PHILIPPE SA - The watch

In particular it states, "for calibers with diameters of 20 mm or more, the rate accuracy must lie within the range of -3 and +2 seconds per 24 hours." All the mechanical movements (including the manual wind 215 PS calibre) in their men's watches are above the 20mm cutoff.

In all cases, these mean daily rates involve a kinetic simulator which cycles the watch through different positions. The actual accuracy observed on the wrist depends on usage patterns, and Grand Seiko states as a disclaimer that, "the accuracy of the watch may vary depending on the actual usage conditions and may be different from the certified accuracy."

The mean variation refers to the difference in the daily rate from day to day, and measures the consistency of the rate. This measures precision as opposed to accuracy.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Will_f said:


> It's not objective analysis that's missing. It's agreement on what makes something "better". If your criteria for better doesn't match mine, then of course we will disagree.
> 
> The mistake you're making is believing that objective criteria exist and that you are using them. Both beliefs are false.


In the absence of objective criteria all these exercise is futile because it's impossible to make any meaningfull comparison. And that means also that you can't argue that Patek is any better than Alpinist.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

Okapi001 said:


> In the absence of objective criteria all these exercise is futile because it's impossible to make any meaningfull comparison. And that means also that you can't argue that Patek is any better than Alpinist.


Let's just take price out of the discussion for a minute. After all, the original question was about quality, as opposed to value for money.

I have both a Patek Philippe Calatrava 5119 and a Seiko SARB033, and if you had both watches in your hand, you would never have to make an argument that a Patek was better than a Seiko SARB, it would be readily apparent.

If you really need some sort of objective criteria, you could put them on your Timegrapher, and test them in different positions, at different levels of power reserve, and at different temperatures, and it would be clear that the Patek was a much more consistent performer.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Okapi001 said:


> In the absence of objective criteria all these exercise is futile because it's impossible to make any meaningfull comparison. And that means also that you can't argue that Patek is any better than Alpinist.


His point was that you seem to refuse everyone's definition of 'quality' but your own. There have been fantastic photographs in this thread, in depth analysis by people who know what they're talking about, and first hand assessment by people who own all the watches. Yet you still refuse to believe / buy into these conceptions of quality. Steadfastly referring only to what _you_ think is important. That's great, when it comes to _you_ buying what _you _want to spend money on. But for the purposes of actual discussion about the merits of these watches, it doesn't get anyone, anywhere.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> In the absence of objective criteria all these exercise is futile because it's impossible to make any meaningfull comparison. And that means also that you can't argue that Patek is any better than Alpinist.


Close. You can compare them using non objective criteria, but if your criteria differ dramatically from others on this forum, you're wasting your time.

Case in point:

if my criteria is accurate, good looking and cheap, I'll pick up a $100 watch at Costco and laugh at the prices for GS.

If my criteria is master level craftsmanship, I'll search high and low for a Philippe Dufour and walk right past the Pateks.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

TheWalrus said:


> His point was that you seem to refuse everyone's definition of 'quality' but your own.


I was trying to be polite about it, but that's exactly right.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

mleok said:


> If you really need some sort of objective criteria, you could put them on your Timegrapher, and test them in different positions, at different levels of power reserve, and at different temperatures, and it would be clear that the Patek was a much more consistent performer.


It's Will_f who claims that there are no objective criteria, not me.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

Okapi001 said:


> It's Will_f who claims that there are no objective criteria, not me.


And I stand by that position. There are those who love Invicta for their size, their style, and their price. Most of the people I work with think a less accurate, high maintenance mechanical watch is not better than a $50 quartz.

I am considered decidedly eccentric by my friends for owning more than one watch, let alone 11 or so with a total value exceeding the price of a decent television. Frankly, they're probably right.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

I think there are plenty of objective criteria on which to judge a watch, the problem is that when one tries to collapse these disparate criteria into a single linear ordering, one needs to assign weights to each of these criteria. This is where it becomes subjective, as each of us values these aspects differently.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Just to clarify this - Patek's standard is *5 seconds variation* (-3 to + 2 sec/day), Grand Seiko's standard is mean variation: *Less than 1.8 seconds/day*, maximum variation:* Less than 4.0 seconds/day.* The Seiko's -3/+5 sec/day is mean daily rate *in different positions*. And it's adjusted to 6 positions, versus 5 in Patek. So unless you have more detailed data about Patek's standard, Seiko wins
> 
> ?


Sorry, but no. the -3/+5 for Seiko is indeed in different positions BUT the Patek Seal is for -3/+2 for IN CASE KINETIC testing which ends up being essentially an infinite number of positions. The Patek movements must meet the spec raw, in case and in kinetic in cased testing. Assuming neither company is fudging ever Patek should be able to meet the GS standard, but GS movements could still pass their standards and fail the Patek seal standards.

Independent testing would be great however the N would have to be high enough to be statistical and therefore unlikely. The best Patek out of a thousand might look ridiculously better than the worst GS out of a thousand or vice versa. In the end we will have to take the companies word for it and assign whatever weight we deem appropriate on an individual level. This is one of those specs that is hard to verify unlike say engine horsepower in a car. Any number of variables could ruin the results, ill treatment by a shipping company along the way for example. My Patek runs about 1.4 seconds fast measured over 28 days with a mixture of wear and winder. I have never done a day by day on it since I am not overly worried about pure accuracy. I do run 28 day tests about every 6 months on all my automatics (the hand winds don't always stay wound) just to keep and eye on things, if I see anything odd I put them on the Timegrapher and check beat error and amplitude just in case.

I think the Patek Seal is a rather fascinating set of requirements. Not that it sets them apart from the other high end makers necessarily but it is neat to see them say every watch we make will meet these standards, though it is just marketing since every brand has such criteria even if only internally.


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

mleok said:


> I think there are plenty of objective criteria on which to judge a watch, the problem is that when one tries to collapse these disparate criteria into a single linear ordering, one needs to assign weights to each of these criteria. This is where it becomes subjective, as each of us values these aspects differently.


I'll buy that, with the added condition that weighting can be positive, zero, or negative.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

mleok said:


> I think there are plenty of objective criteria on which to judge a watch, the problem is that when one tries to collapse these disparate criteria into a single linear ordering, one needs to assign weights to each of these criteria. This is where it becomes subjective, as each of us values these aspects differently.


I think that there are objective criteria you can use to judge a watch. However, I think you also have to presume that there are a certain set of values that the objective criteria attach to.

For instance fit and finish. You still have to presume that people value high fit and finish. Similarly with accuracy. Or fine detailing. I don't think these are huge presumptions to make&#8230; but at the same time, I suppose it's possible that someone could legitimately have other values - size, weight, or what not - and simply not care at all about fit and finish or accuracy. So for them, objectively determined judgments about fit and finish would be meaningless.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Also - we can do it guys - not that much further to 1000 posts….


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Will_f said:


> If my criteria is master level craftsmanship, I'll search high and low for a Philippe Dufour and walk right past the Pateks.


Every Dufour should come with its own microscope to view the movement! From what I have seen I am betting you could look for hours to find the slightest miscue at 100X.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> Also - we can do it guys - not that much further to 1000 posts&#8230;.


Objectively, I think posts are over priced, pages have a far better price/performance ratio. Therefore a thread that reaches 100 pages is a better value. I say, therefore it is! :-d


----------



## Will_f (Jul 4, 2011)

ilitig8 said:


> Every Dufour should come with its own microscope to view the movement! From what I have seen I am betting you could look for hours to find the slightest miscue at 100X.


The only time I've ever touched a Dufour I didn't have a lupe, but I don't honestly think I would have had the cojones to pull it out if I'd had it. I was sitting with people wearing quite a few of my grails like it was no big deal. Rest assured though, if I ever manage to lay my hands on a watch of that caliber, I'll put it under a microscope and post lots of pics.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

I wonder how much it'd run you to buy a pre-owned, defend condition, Patek Calatrava for $4 - 5 thousand, and have PP restore it perfectly. As much as a new one? Probably….

***internal monologe: you need to save money, you want to buy a house, you need to buy a second car, Patek Phillipe can wait...***


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

People high up at PP and Seiko are having a good laugh at this thread. Good publicity for them, I think.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ImitationOfLife said:


> People high up at PP and Seiko are having a good laugh at this thread. Good publicity for them, I think.


Oh guaranteed. I've never spent so many, nearly reckless, hours browsing Chrono24, and various online pre-owned watch stores.


----------



## mleok (Feb 16, 2010)

TheWalrus said:


> I think that there are objective criteria you can use to judge a watch. However, I think you also have to presume that there are a certain set of values that the objective criteria attach to.
> 
> For instance fit and finish. You still have to presume that people value high fit and finish. Similarly with accuracy. Or fine detailing. I don't think these are huge presumptions to make&#8230; but at the same time, I suppose it's possible that someone could legitimately have other values - size, weight, or what not - and simply not care at all about fit and finish or accuracy. So for them, objectively determined judgments about fit and finish would be meaningless.


Whether one values a particular criteria is absolutely independent of whether one can objectively measure that criteria. The example you've raised can be addressed by simply assigning a weight of zero to any criteria which is unimportant to you.

But, I will say that in addition to the weight one might assign to each criteria, there is also a choice in how one assigns relative values for each criteria. Put another way, it's relatively easy to conclude that the finishing of a Patek movement is superior to the finishing on a Seiko 5 movement, but it is much more subjective to quantify just how much better the finishing is.


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> Oh guaranteed. I've never spent so many, nearly reckless, hours browsing Chrono24, and various online pre-owned watch stores.


Check out Walt Odets and his microscope breaking down Patek Philippe movements too. Good stuff even for a layman like myself.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ljb187 said:


> Check out Walt Odets and his microscope breaking down Patek Philippe movements too. Good stuff even for a layman like myself.


First, is this going to help, or hurt my bank balance. Bear in mind that I have limited self control, there's a visa card 1 foot to my right, and my wife is hanging out with her sisters tonight&#8230;.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

Already got distracted by a break down of a JLC ultra thin.


----------



## ImitationOfLife (Oct 15, 2010)

ljb187 said:


> Check out Walt Odets and his microscope breaking down Patek Philippe movements too. Good stuff even for a layman like myself.


Thanks for that. This PP vs Lange article is especially interesting.

http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium631671464248171541

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

So I think I need one of theses:

The Jaeger Le Coultre Master Ultra Thin - TimeZone


----------



## ljb187 (Nov 6, 2009)

ImitationOfLife said:


> Thanks for that. This PP vs Lange article is especially interesting.


No problem - I'm going to look for the one you mentioned. His review of the caliber 215 is a nice place to start.



TheWalrus said:


> So I think I need one of theses:
> 
> The Jaeger Le Coultre Master Ultra Thin - TimeZone


You've spent like $20,000 or $30,000 in you head this evening! Careful because once those seeds get planted and the roots take, it's awfully hard to get rid of those ideas. The 35mm JLC Master Ultra Thin is in close competition with the Grande Taille in my head at the moment. Surprisingly I think the pure dress watch is in the lead.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

fjblair said:


> What are we missing? Please explain how they cannot be mutually exclusive properties.


Our friend was specifically referring to quality and price relative to value. Cost is an inescapable element of value. Pretty much by definition, yeah? A fine timepiece is a physical object with a relatively high persistent value. Assume 2 such objects are fairly similar in function and build quality. If one watch, watch X, costs a fraction more than watch Y, but retains almost all of its value going forward then it costs a lot to acquire but relatively little in terms of true cost to own. If watch Y costs a bit less but doesn't retain it's value going forward, well... you get the idea.

If money is truly no object in this discussion, then perhaps these things might be mutually exclusive, but our friend has never suggested that money is not a factor. Quiet the opposite, actually.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

ljb187 said:


> You've spent like $20,000 or $30,000 in you head this evening! Careful because once those seeds get planted and the roots take, it's awfully hard to get rid of those ideas. The 35mm JLC Master Ultra Thin is in close competition with the Grande Taille in my head at the moment. Surprisingly I think the pure dress watch is in the lead.


haha yeah. God help me if I ever win the lottery.

On the plus side, there'd be a lot of 'unboxing' threads on WUS.


----------



## warsawpactarmor (Mar 13, 2011)

A 4 o'clock crown, a 120-click bezel, and the words "Seiko" and "Diver's 200m" on the dial are worth more to me than any complication or exalted level of haute finissage. But I'm quite aware that to achieve the latter takes a great deal of time, effort, and money on the part of Patek, JLC, VC, and so forth, and while I can't afford those types of watches and probably wouldn't buy them even if I could, I do think they're magnificent and as best I can determine from what I know about the manufacturers and the process of making them, fairly priced if you value that level of finishing and mechanical perfection, which I think is a perfectly reasonable yardstick for "quality" even if it's one that doesn't particularly interest me.

Having said that, I do think it's possible to informally use the word "overpriced" without committing to a categorical statement that the market won't or shouldn't bear a particular price on a particular watch. It can be just saying that the asking price (which may be consistently realized by the seller) seems somewhat out of line with the quality or features of the watch in question. It's not quite exactly the same thing as saying that the price "isn't worth it to me", since I can think of some watches that I abstractly consider to be "overpriced" that I would buy with no regrets. To put it another way, to casually describe something as "overpriced" while acknowledging that they sell at that price and you might buy one yourself might be simply to say that in your view it doesn't offer particularly good value for money.


----------



## H2KA (Apr 17, 2010)

Will_f said:


> Since you guys are still slugging it out, I thought I would post a few close up pics of a Grand Seiko. I also included some pics of my 33 year old oysterquartz because it's recently been overhauled in a major way and is therefore in similar condition. I would have included some true high end watches, but I'm still working on that part of my collection...
> 
> First, the GS: This is an SBGX103, which is quartz, but it's a special limited edition for all that and the case finishing is the usual GS standard.
> 
> ...


Superb pics.. :-! That Rolex bracelet sure looks great.. :-!

For further comparison, here are some pics of watches I previously owned, and which I think roughly compete with the GS price wise..


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> So I think I need one of theses:
> 
> The Jaeger Le Coultre Master Ultra Thin - TimeZone


I can't say "need" in such a sentence with a straight face, but I'd sure pay what they're asking for either of these if I had it to spare:

Master Ultra Thin Perpetual | Luxury watches | Jaeger-LeCoultre E-boutique

Duomètre à Quantième Lunaire | Luxury watches | Jaeger-LeCoultre E-boutique


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

warsawpactarmor said:


> To put it another way, to casually describe something as "overpriced" while acknowledging that they sell at that price and you might buy one yourself might be simply to say that in your view it doesn't offer particularly good value for money.


 Yes, one can misuse words at will. That doesn't mean it's not a misuse of the word.


----------



## lysanderxiii (Oct 4, 2006)

Okapi001 said:


> ilitig8 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have any real experience with the quality of the watches in question.
> ...


It means, very simply, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Further, you are not listing to people who do have experience with the watches in question and are telling you something that goes against your preconceived notions.

_"There are none so blind as those who will not see..."
_


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

We're done here. Move on.


----------

