# why fashion brands suck.



## watch_art

so i was thinking the other day as i was changing batteries in some watches from different teachers at school, why it is that fashion brands suck. 
so far, all of the teachers either own fossil or kenneth cole.
fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them. i bet if you asked them to name 10 high end brands, they could only come up with rolex and MAYBE omega.

so why is it that we here wis folk hate fashion brands so much?

i'd like this thread to be a place where we can point newbs to so they can understand a little more easily why fossil, gucci, and dolce and gabbana aren't taken seriously here and in the WUS world.


----------



## ulackfocus

What's wrong with Fossil and Kenneth Cole? I've seen some pretty nice looking ones with SeaGull movements that seem to be pretty decent values. There's no such thing as a bad genuine watch - some are just better than others.


----------



## watch-man7777

Seems like Watch Art has some growing up to do.


----------



## novedl

i've never been very good at being negative, so i thinkl i will sit this one out bro.(whistling non descript tune fades into the distance)


----------



## hpark21

Oh grasshopper, I see that you have not begun your journey of being a WIS and still just a WI. 

Soon, as you master, you shall realize that only bad watch are watch that are not worn and someone's trash is someone else's treasure.

There is no good or bad when it comes to watches. As long as they keep time, brand is not important, just how you FEEL is important. If you like your watch and wear it in good health, then the watch is serving its purpose.

Go forth and learn the way to accept so that you can put "S" in your (WI)Sdom.


----------



## cavallino33

I think there a lot of fashion watches that have nice designs they just don't always represent the best bang for the buck IMO. The same could be said for a lot of big name brands.

The only watch I had bad luck with was a Kenneth cole but that was probably 10 years ago so it could be different now.


----------



## Ray MacDonald

I don't hate fashion brands. I've got a Guess Collection that looks very nice, has an excellent leather deployant band and reminds me of the Cartier Pasha watches of yesteryear.
I just buy what I like and don't worry about watch snobbery.


----------



## polaco23

:-d your funny OP.

nothing's wrong with fashion brands, theyre cheap and have their place in collections. Ive bought three fossils for gifts, and one of them needed to be replaced (stopped running after dropped it). So i took it to the local fossil store, they apologized, took a brand new one, sized it for me, and gave it to me. No paperwork, no questions, no asking if i bought it new (i bought it off of craigslist!). I just brought the watch in, no boxes or papers, and they were more than happy to help me out.

Try doing that with a Rolex or Omega. :-d

And please dont speak for all us members of watch fora (or _us wis folk_ as you put it). ;-)


----------



## Eric L.

I can certainly think of a more tactful way to express watch preferences than the way the OP posted. I'll let this thread stand but if it descends to arguments or rude statements, I'll have to close it. Be nice, folks.

In the end, I am pretty happy that people wear watches at all - its better than going naked wristed and pulling out the cell phone to tell the time!


----------



## Paul December

IMO it is unfair to lump Gucci with the other "Fashion Brands"...
...they actually have some very well made pieces. The manufacture of their watches isn't farmed-out. I believe they are owned by the same company as Bedat.


----------



## ivan1998

ulackfocus said:


> What's wrong with Fossil and Kenneth Cole? I've seen some pretty nice looking ones with SeaGull movements that seem to be pretty decent values. There's no such thing as a bad genuine watch - some are just better than others.


You got my friend


----------



## niles316

watch_art said:


> fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them.
> 
> so why is it that we here wis folk hate fashion brands so much?


I don't hate fashion brand watches. Own a few myself n think they are fun to have.

Maybe the OP wants to explain why he hates Fossil? I feel they are decently made watches n are priced accordingly. I'm not even sure if Fossil should be considered a fashion brand watch.


----------



## J_Hack

Me personally, I do not hate them. I just do not like to wear what everyone else is wearing. I like toe be different. This goes for most Rolex too, some are really nice, but they are the most "common" luxury brand of watch and people can identify them. You can look at most peoples wrist and see only a select few brands of watches... Seiko/Citizen, Fossil, or Rolex. Obviously depending on whose wrist you see your results may vary! Not a dig on any of the brands, just each person has different taste. That's why we have so many watches to pick from!

Some Fossils are nice, as are some Seiko and some Rolex. To each his own, ya' know.


----------



## crazyfingers

Eric L. said:


> In the end, I am pretty happy that people wear watches at all - its better than going naked wristed and pulling out the cell phone to tell the time!


You stole the words right out of my mouth! Thats one thing I like about them, maybe they can get people interested in watches


----------



## Janne

The question is: What is a Fashion Brand?
Among certain WIS, Doxa or Panerai can be seen as a Fashion Brand.
Of course, you have the Fashion Brands such as K. Cole, Guess etc.
Low cost, Quartz movements (mainly), made in the Far East, a case form that is not traditional.
But, does that detract from the primary function of the piece? 
Which is: 
Time keeping (a quartz Guess watch for $100 is more accurate than my own $10 000 JLC)
Looks, (very subjective) ?
IMO all watches have a certain degree of charm.
It is more a taste, and the willingness to spend money on totally irrelevant pieces of wrist jewellery!

Edit: And a certain degree of stupidity. Hence the "I" in WIS!


----------



## HelloNasty1

Because they do not hold up, the bands stretch easily, they are not constructed very well, mineral crystal (I hate mineral crystal personally), wear it everyday for 2 years and you will have your answer.


----------



## TheWalrus

I really hope you're not a _student_ at school and feeling as though it's your place to criticize your teachers who work for a living and might actually have concerns and focuses outside of pointless luxury items like watches.


----------



## polaco23

TheWalrus said:


> I really hope you're not a _student_ at school and feeling as though it's your place to criticize your teachers who work for a living and might actually have concerns and focuses outside of pointless luxury items like watches.


well said. i really like your reply's on this forum, walrus. :-!


----------



## Ananda

well, to each their own. personally i can relate to some of the op's sentiments. i guess in my mind, i have a certain subjective belief system of what brands are horologically significant and what brands aren't. some just don't cut the mustard for me - and that's ok.


----------



## checknwatch

polaco23 said:


> well said. i really like your reply's on this forum, walrus. :-!


While my current interests in watches typically lead me in other directions, I have to give credit to both swatch and fossil for fueling my early interest in watches. The most amazing thing happened ages ago when I started walking up to the fossil or swatch counter and realizing, "hey! I can actually afford two or three of these!" It was quite the revelation.;-)


----------



## Chev James

I truly prize my mechanical Omegas, but it's great that technology can enable a person to wear a watch costing a hundredth of what an Omega does, and have accuracy that is beyond some of the most expensive watches. And there are some decent looking "fashion" watches, as well. I don't have much use for "super blingy" watches sold in some malls, but again that is probably preferable to the "watchless" trend among so many younger people today.


----------



## publandlord

watch_art said:


> so why is it that we here wis folk hate fashion brands so much?


Speak for yourself. Can we change the subject title to "Why prejudice and immaturity suck"?

Did you spit in or deliberately leave debris in the watches you repaired? Since you have such obvious contempt for them and their owners.


----------



## kiwidj

Eric L. said:


> In the end, I am pretty happy that people wear watches at all - its better than going naked wristed and pulling out the cell phone to tell the time!


Indeed. :-!


----------



## novedl

Ananda said:


> well, to each their own. personally i can relate to some of the op's sentiments. i guess in my mind, i have a certain subjective belief system of what brands are horologically significant and what brands aren't. some just don't cut the mustard for me - and that's ok.


 subjective is the right word; i believe that everyone has the right to wear a watch. that also means they have the right not to wear one. the presence of pieces made at a price palatable to the non WIS imo is a good thing. the gentrified classes held the view that art was strictly the domain of the well heeled and that the proleteriat were undeserving of enjoying it. i couldn't disagree more strongly; art is for all not just the annointed few, and watches are for all, hence there is a place for "fashion watches".


----------



## Guest

The fact that the op has not responded back indicates the seriousness of the person and the topic


----------



## gerrylb

"Hate" is such an ugly emotion, far too ugly to waste on a simple watch. 

To the TS, I hope you're smart enough not to let your contempt for your teachers' taste in wristwear show. At best they'll look at you as if you're some strange nut, at worst they'll tell you what body orifice to stick your "refined" preferences into.


----------



## Craig M

Honestly when my wife wants a watch its usually along the fashion brand side of the spectrum....I'm just happy she still WANTS a watch and lets me help her find it. :-d

not to mention I have plenty of 'fashion' brand watches that have served me very well for years.

but, if its not your thing then thats cool too


----------



## John MS

watch_art said:


> so i was thinking the other day as i was changing batteries in some watches from different teachers at school, why it is that fashion brands suck.
> so far, all of the teachers either own fossil or kenneth cole.
> fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them. i bet if you asked them to name 10 high end brands, they could only come up with rolex and MAYBE omega.
> 
> so why is it that we here wis folk hate fashion brands so much?
> 
> i'd like this thread to be a place where we can point newbs to so they can understand a little more easily why fossil, gucci, and dolce and gabbana aren't taken seriously here and in the WUS world.


Two questions:
1. What criteria defines a fashion watch.
2. What criteria defines a high end watch.

BTW, I have yet to find a watch brand I hate. There are quite a few watch designs that I like.


----------



## Redrum

I understand the OP's point.
It is probably based on the fact that most of the times (about 90%) that someone -a newb maybe- asks a question about:

1.- A fossil watch
2.- A Guess watch
3.- A Keneth Cole watch
4.- A Perry Ellis watch
5.- And many other similar.....

A.- The thread is left there to die
B.- Someone writes something very negative/rude like:
B.1.- "It's a fashion watch"
B.2.- "It's a quartzie"
B.3.- "It's probably chinese"
B.4.- "It has a mineral crystal and poor construction/fit/finish"
C.- GET A SEIKO or a CITIZEN
D.- It degenerates into a Seiko Monster wristshot extravaganza

So, it is IMHO normal if someone thinks that "Fashion" watches are hated.
Probably hated is not a good word, maybe under apreciated.

Take care

RR


----------



## drickster

Well, chiming in as a newbie... This thread has effectively served it's purpose.

I was starting to feel that I should only enjoy "high end" watches and my low enders weren't worth much in the scheme of things sort of like the OP said. But after reading through this thread I realize my mistake. 

I don't buy a lot of watches, just the ones that "sing" to me. it doesn't matter the price, it's the enjoyment that counts.

So thanks guys for steering a newbie on the right path!! :thanks


----------



## TheWalrus

polaco23 said:


> well said. i really like your reply's on this forum, walrus. :-!


Thanks Polaco - I know I can be a bit sarcastic from time to time - but I like to think that it's usually at least somewhat deserved in context (though I know _a lot_ of people would disagree with me on that).

What gets me most riled up though are people who insist on making judgment calls about people that don't share their interests, and the things that they choose to buy. Happens _so_ much. Not just with watches, of course, but with pens, cars, clothes, you name it. Much better to take a live and let live approach in my opinion.


----------



## watch_art

the fact that i had not responded to any of this just means i've been busy. and once my wife gets home at night, i try to get off of the computer. especially if she gets home early, it means we get to hang out. 

no i'm not a student and no i don't have any contempt for my fellow teachers who wear fossil.



> Maybe the OP wants to explain why he hates Fossil?


i don't like the watches themselves b/c they're cheaply/poorly constructed (most of the ones i've dealt with, not ALL of them obviously). that's where i'm coming from. i don't want to deal with caseback screws that were superglued in at the factory, or that strip twist apart at the thought of a screwdriver.

i tend to look at things from the point of view of how is it to work on. cars, houses, watches, whatever. or how they're put together and if they're done right or if they're just done quickly with little care for quality.

***


> *Re: why fashion brands suck.*
> I understand the OP's point.
> It is probably based on the fact that most of the times (about 90%) that someone -a newb maybe- asks a question about:
> 
> 1.- A fossil watch
> 2.- A Guess watch
> 3.- A Keneth Cole watch
> 4.- A Perry Ellis watch
> 5.- And many other similar.....
> 
> A.- The thread is left there to die
> B.- Someone writes something very negative/rude like:
> B.1.- "It's a fashion watch"
> B.2.- "It's a quartzie"
> B.3.- "It's probably chinese"
> B.4.- "It has a mineral crystal and poor construction/fit/finish"
> C.- GET A SEIKO or a CITIZEN
> D.- It degenerates into a Seiko Monster wristshot extravaganza
> 
> So, it is IMHO normal if someone thinks that "Fashion" watches are hated.
> Probably hated is not a good word, maybe under apreciated.


this is what i'm basing this on. obviously i've read wrong and misunderstood most of your feelings and sentiments towards these watches.



> the gentrified classes held the view that art was strictly the domain of the well heeled and that the proleteriat were undeserving of enjoying it. i couldn't disagree more strongly; art is for all not just the annointed few, and watches are for all, hence there is a place for "fashion watches".


very good point.

***


> well, to each their own. personally i can relate to some of the op's sentiments. i guess in my mind, i have a certain subjective belief system of what brands are horologically significant and what brands aren't. some just don't cut the mustard for me.


exactly
***


> Because they do not hold up, the bands stretch easily, they are not constructed very well, mineral crystal (I hate mineral crystal personally), wear it everyday for 2 years and you will have your answer.


this is where i'm coming from. poor contruction. and in my opinion, they are priced WAY too high for what you get.

***


> Seems like Watch Art has some growing up to do.


well that goes without saying. 

***


> Oh grasshopper, I see that you have not begun your journey of being a WIS and still just a WI.
> 
> Soon, as you master, you shall realize that only bad watch are watch that are not worn and someone's trash is someone else's treasure.
> 
> There is no good or bad when it comes to watches. As long as they keep time, brand is not important, just how you FEEL is important. If you like your watch and wear it in good health, then the watch is serving its purpose.
> 
> Go forth and learn the way to accept so that you can put "S" in your (WI)Sdom.


LOL!! very well said. i don't mean to imply that i dislike the people who wear these brands, just that they (the ones i encounter, not everybody who buys them) seem to be uneducated about the watch they're buying, and that there is a better bang for buck out there to be found.

***


> The only watch I had bad luck with was a Kenneth cole but that was probably 10 years ago so it could be different now.


an acquaintance has a brand new k c. bought it 3 months ago during summer. stem just fell out a few weeks ago. he wasn't setting it, even. he asked me if i would or could fix it. no! it should still be under warranty! send it back to them and they should fix it for free. nope. he had to pay for the stem once they got the watch ($7... not too bad) then he had to pay for return shipping once they were 'done' with it. and when he gets it, the stem is floating loose in the box they sent it in. what's that about!? it's not even the same kind of crown. it's about 1/4 inch in diameter which is about 3 times larger than the crown it came with. to me, that's unacceptable. if they don't care about the watches they produce and sell, why should I? and this guy has been a k cole fan for years, but i think this is turning him off of them.

***


> And please dont speak for all us members of watch fora (or us wis folk as you put it).


definitely. sorry about that.

***


> IMO it is unfair to lump Gucci with the other "Fashion Brands"...
> ...they actually have some very well made pieces. The manufacture of their watches isn't farmed-out. I believe they are owned by the same company as Bedat.


okay. didn't know. obviously there's a lot i don't know. :-d

okay. i kindly await the firestorm to continue.


----------



## obsidian

Eric L. said:


> In the end, I am pretty happy that people wear watches at all - its better than going naked wristed and pulling out the cell phone to tell the time!


*But cell phones and Blackberries are the new pocket watches! :-d*


----------



## obsidian

novedl said:


> subjective is the right word; i believe that everyone has the right to wear a watch. that also means they have the right not to wear one.


*Indeed, folks have to remember that their feelings and opinions are "subjective".
For example:

"Quartz watches suck!" -- Socially unacceptable! :-|

"I think quartz watches suck!" -- That's OK! :-d*


----------



## TheWalrus

obsidian said:


> *"I think quartz watches suck!" -- That's OK! :-d*


Maybe OK in that it's an acknowledgment of the subjective nature of the claim. But from a logical perspective a conclusion without any premises is not OK at all!


----------



## drickster

obsidian said:


> *But cell phones and Blackberries are the new pocket watches! :-d*


careful what you wish for.....

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/rims-blackberry-watch-pictured-possibly-called-inpulse/


----------



## Watchbreath

They suck to snob wannabes.


----------



## Matt

Honestly, I don't care what kind of watch someone is wearing.

As a watch lover, all I care about is that someone IS wearing a watch.

I see so many people using their iPhones to check the time these days; so it's nice to see people wearing watches at all.


----------



## novedl

drickster said:


> Well, chiming in as a newbie... This thread has effectively served it's purpose.
> 
> I was starting to feel that I should only enjoy "high end" watches and my low enders weren't worth much in the scheme of things sort of like the OP said. But after reading through this thread I realize my mistake.
> 
> I don't buy a lot of watches, just the ones that "sing" to me. it doesn't matter the price, it's the enjoyment that counts.
> 
> So thanks guys for steering a newbie on the right path!! :thanks


 well the goal of the OP has been met as this thread can and will serve as an educational tool for new members; and that's a good thing. watch_art this was a great thread(no sarcasm intended)|>|>


----------



## watch_art

novedl said:


> well the goal of the OP has been met as this thread can and will serve as an educational tool for new members; and that's a good thing. watch_art this was a great thread(no sarcasm intended)|>|>


yeah it definitely has been that. thanks. i've learned a thing or two a well. 

hope there's no animosity towards me for my misguided view of the forum.


----------



## matt.wu

I actually really like a lot of offerings from Fossil, and though I've owned watches worth 50x more, I still am very happy wearing it (and not afraid to put it in my sig :-d)


----------



## RJRJRJ

While I wouldnt say I hate them (I prefer to think I have more important things to do in life than hate a genre of watch), but I certainly dont think that the majority of them represent a good value. Some of the low price fossil type watches have their place though. A lot of people want a watch, but would never think of spending more than a hundred bucks or so, nor would they care enough to join a watch site and find out if any better watches exist for the money. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Raez

TheWalrus said:


> I really hope you're not a _student_ at school and feeling as though it's your place to criticize your teachers who work for a living and might actually have concerns and focuses outside of pointless luxury items like watches.


I don't mean this to be a shot at you, but I think you're being a little unfair, even if he was a student.

At no point did he say anything about criticizing anybody, and I'm fairly certain he didn't want to either. If you look at the thread title, you'll notice it says "why fashion brands suck." not "why people who wear fashion brands suck." I have a similar distaste for fashion brands, but when I see somebody with a fashion watch I don't think "Wow what a loser that guy overpaid for a mediocre watch and he thinks he looks cool." I think one of two things, either "Poor guy has never been to WUS, doesn't know he could get a much better watch for the money." (seiko, orient etc etc ec.) or I think "That guy doesn't care about what's inside his watch, and that's fine with me."

Either way, I've never judged anybody on what watch their wearing, unless I think it's ugly/flamboyant in which case I just think they're style is not great.

Again, please don't take this as a retort, it's just my 0 cents on the issue. (sorry, spent every last penny on these damned watches :-d:-d:-d)


----------



## c7aea

I see this same type of "discussion" a lot about headphones. And why some one would want to buy a brand like skullcandy (which is like the fashion brand), when they could spend their money else where if they were a little more informed and buy something nicer sounding. 
If they like the watch its fine with me, I have only seen and held them never bought one its not for me. Which should be ok too. 
I can understand why most "fashion" brands like that are popular, people know the name. Most people have never heard of Ball, or even tag heuer. And they think its crazy to spend so much on a watch. 
People relate to brand names. IMO the most annoying question I get asked, and asked a lot, when people find out that I am really into watches is "do you have a rolex". 
So for not as much money they can get a watch that serves its purpose while looking a little flashy. And just like the headphones it usually makes them more curious about what is out there then its all down hill from there, as most of us know. It can be like a gate way drug.


----------



## waruilewi

Ray MacDonald said:


> I don't hate fashion brands. I've got a Guess Collection that looks very nice, has an excellent leather deployant band and reminds me of the Cartier Pasha watches of yesteryear.
> I just buy what I like and don't worry about watch snobbery.


+1, hate to say it but not everyone has access to the 'good stuff' sometimes. And the guy wearing a Guess driving the Porsche might think badly of me if I tooled around in a Hyundai, regardless if I had a Omega or Rolex on, right?


----------



## TheWalrus

Raez said:


> I don't mean this to be a shot at you, but I think you're being a little unfair, even if he was a student.
> 
> At no point did he say anything about criticizing anybody, and I'm fairly certain he didn't want to either. If you look at the thread title, you'll notice it says "why fashion brands suck." not "why people who wear fashion brands suck." I have a similar distaste for fashion brands, but when I see somebody with a fashion watch I don't think "Wow what a loser that guy overpaid for a mediocre watch and he thinks he looks cool." I think one of two things, either "Poor guy has never been to WUS, doesn't know he could get a much better watch for the money." (seiko, orient etc etc ec.) or I think "That guy doesn't care about what's inside his watch, and that's fine with me."
> 
> Either way, I've never judged anybody on what watch their wearing, unless I think it's ugly/flamboyant in which case I just think they're style is not great.
> 
> Again, please don't take this as a retort, it's just my 0 cents on the issue. (sorry, spent every last penny on these damned watches :-d:-d:-d)


Re-reading his first post, I still stand by what I wrote. Sure he didn't come out and _explicitly criticize_ them. But there was a strong implication that people who wear these watches, that people who do like these watches do so because they're ignorant. Because they're uninformed. Because they haven't achieved the same levels of taste and appreciation.

It's the combination of two premises leading to, what I think, is a reasonable inference of a conclusion:

a) "so far, all of the teachers either own fossil or kenneth cole."

b) "fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them. i bet if you asked them to name 10 high end brands, they could only come up with rolex and MAYBE omega."
-----
C) Teachers, who own Fossil, mistakingly (ignorantly?) believe that Fossil is this 'hugely important watch brand'. _They _(the teachers) can't seem to get past them. Further, they don't know _anything_ about true quality because they could, probably, only name one or two high end brands.

That conclusion is derisive. It's insulting. It's placing the original poster on a higher pedestal of good taste. They, _those people, those *teachers*_, don't know anything about watches, so they buy these cheap trinkets. These pathetic watches that _we,_ the enlighted "WIS" hate. Not just avoid. Not just dislike. Not just ignore. But _hate_.

Personally, I think Fossil _is_ a hugely important brand. They're egalitarian. They're inexpensive. They produce nicely styled, very competitively priced watches for a population driven further and further from wristwatches alltogether. And make no mistake about it. A Rolex, or a Patek, or a A. Lange & Sonne are all just as much about image and jewelry and styling as a Fossil or Timex.


----------



## Paul December

Personally, I don't hate Fashion Watches...
...I hate people who wear Fashion Watches!
Actually, I hate these people & their watches.

Somebody has to represent the Watch Snobs among us.


----------



## novedl

no worries here bro~cheers.


----------



## bsmith13

I don't have anything significant to add, but I will anyway 

It's nice to see the OP taking this so well. The forum corrected him swiftly (sometimes with kindness, sometimes with less), and he's still here. I admire the teaching and learning that took place here.

My limited funds have precluded me from acquiring what would be considered an entry-level watch by the average WIS. My watches' provenance lies in their sentimental worth rather than their value. Not everyone feels that way about watches, which is okay with me. I still aspire to my first $300+ watch (and beyond!), but I will have to get a few kids through college first. So the $100 Fossil that my wife gives me because she knew I would like the design shares wrist time with the other $100 watches I have been given.

I also like having conversations about watches. Though rare, I enjoy finding someone who thinks of a watch as more than a utility.

So Welcome, watch art. Stick around. This is a nice place to learn from each other.


----------



## Janne

So true!
Unfortunately, a $100 Fossil will be a better time keeper than a $10 000 Panerai.
And the worst is, that both are Fashion watches, just on a different level!


----------



## Beau8

People believe what they want to believe, albeit fashion brands are mere replaceable items and as such holds no great monetary value. That's why when they're ready to take the plunge, they look to the high end luxury brands to replace their mediocre watches~Cheers! ;-)


----------



## Janne

But is that not the usual snobbery?
Quite a few Luxury Brands are "created", with that I mean they are lifted up to a luxury level image wise and price wise, but in fact are quite ordinary watches!

IMO, if a watch is powered with an ETA movement, even of the highest grade, it can never be a Luxury watch, unless the Manufacturer has done some serious modification to the movement.

I am not rubbishing ETA, as I see those products as a MB Diesel engine.() Reliable, solid, sufficient performance!


----------



## taint it sweet

I have several Kenneth Cole watches, and although I like the designs, the batteries die very quickly...I've never had one last longer than the first year...


----------



## Tragic

The op isn't a newb.
He's just reflecting the attitude anyone would soon pick up on watch forums.
No matter how many ppl. post here to the contrary.


----------



## H3O+

Hmm...
I won't say fashion watches "suck." I used to wear Fossil, most kids at my school wear Fossil if they're wearing a watch. At least they're wearing one. 
I just think there are much more well built options out there for the money. E.G. Timex, Casio, Orient, Seiko, Citizen, Swatch, homages...


----------



## watch_art

H3O+ said:


> Hmm...
> I won't say fashion watches "suck." I used to wear Fossil, most kids at my school wear Fossil if they're wearing a watch. At least they're wearing one.
> I just think there are much more well built options out there for the money. E.G. Timex, Casio, Orient, Seiko, Citizen, Swatch, homages...


yeah, i saw one of my parents the other day and she asked me if i'm the watch guy her son keeps talking about. i'm the art teacher, but the kids also know i love watches. and everytime a kid has something on their wrist i make a point to go over and check it out. there are a ton of watches that are very similar to some of the different g shocks, but cheaper and not as durable. but anyway, i had worked on this kids watch a couple times (bracelet screws and batt change) and his mom told me the stem fell out and that she was gonna go get em something cheap from walmart. i suggested a g shock over everything else there just b/c of how tough they are. casio does make a great product, and they're in the same price range as some of the fossils, or like he had, a 'field and stream'. what's that? field and stream? i think his mom told me it was close to $150. 
link to pic here.
don't know where it was bought, but ouch

one of the things i really hate about so many of these cheap watches is how upset my kids get when they break. the crystal falls out, buttons get jammed, the screen doesn't display properly, the cases start to come apart. for a couple of dollars more, their parents could have gotten them tougher watches that would have lasted for quite a few years.

hm.


----------



## TheWalrus

bsmith13 said:


> I don't have anything significant to add, but I will anyway
> 
> It's nice to see the OP taking this so well. The forum corrected him swiftly (sometimes with kindness, sometimes with less), and he's still here. I admire the teaching and learning that took place here.
> 
> My limited funds have precluded me from acquiring what would be considered an entry-level watch by the average WIS. My watches' provenance lies in their sentimental worth rather than their value. Not everyone feels that way about watches, which is okay with me. I still aspire to my first $300+ watch (and beyond!), but I will have to get a few kids through college first. So the $100 Fossil that my wife gives me because she knew I would like the design shares wrist time with the other $100 watches I have been given.
> 
> I also like having conversations about watches. Though rare, I enjoy finding someone who thinks of a watch as more than a utility.
> 
> So Welcome, watch art. Stick around. This is a nice place to learn from each other.


Agreed. And I definitely feel better (less snarky) now that I know he's a teacher as well. Unfairly as it was, I just had this vision of a student criticizing his teachers watches (possibly because there _are_ a lot of snotty, albeit well spoken, kids that frequent these sorts of sites. Still disagree vehemently with the assertion that fashion watches suck though.


----------



## Raez

TheWalrus said:


> Re-reading his first post, I still stand by what I wrote. Sure he didn't come out and _explicitly criticize_ them. But there was a strong implication that people who wear these watches, that people who do like these watches do so because they're ignorant. Because they're uninformed. Because they haven't achieved the same levels of taste and appreciation.
> 
> It's the combination of two premises leading to, what I think, is a reasonable inference of a conclusion:
> 
> a) "so far, all of the teachers either own fossil or kenneth cole."
> 
> b) "fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them. i bet if you asked them to name 10 high end brands, they could only come up with rolex and MAYBE omega."
> -----
> C) Teachers, who own Fossil, mistakingly (ignorantly?) believe that Fossil is this 'hugely important watch brand'. _They _(the teachers) can't seem to get past them. Further, they don't know _anything_ about true quality because they could, probably, only name one or two high end brands.
> 
> That conclusion is derisive. It's insulting. It's placing the original poster on a higher pedestal of good taste. They, _those people, those *teachers*_, don't know anything about watches, so they buy these cheap trinkets. These pathetic watches that _we,_ the enlighted "WIS" hate. Not just avoid. Not just dislike. Not just ignore. But _hate_.
> 
> Personally, I think Fossil _is_ a hugely important brand. They're egalitarian. They're inexpensive. They produce nicely styled, very competitively priced watches for a population driven further and further from wristwatches alltogether. And make no mistake about it. A Rolex, or a Patek, or a A. Lange & Sonne are all just as much about image and jewelry and styling as a Fossil or Timex.


Certainly a valid argument sir, no doubt about that one. ;-)

However, I don't think there's an absolute answer to this question. Honestly, I don't think the question is really asking for an answer. It's almost rhetorical in its nature.

As far as Fossil (and others like it) go, when I saw a fossil before I was a WIS (well maybe just WI :-d), I was not terribly impressed. They ARE cheap, they ARE made for the masses, and they ARE common. I view Rolex in the same category, but I think putting Patek & Lange in that same category might be a little stretch. I find it hard to imagine that any owner of an A. Lange & Sonne watch would not have any appreciate for fine timepieces. I mean, at least they're all mechanical.

In my book, it goes sort of like this...

Fashion/Statement (Low End to High End)


Fossil/Swiss Army etc.
Fashion Brands/TAG etc.
Rolex/SOME Breitlings/SOME Omegas
Complicated/Advanced


Seiko/Orient/Hamilton/Citizen etc.
Oris/Longines/Small Companies (Stowa, MKII, Ocean 7 etc.)
Doxa/Ball/Patek/Lange/Omega/IWC etc.
Again, just my thoughts here. I certainly don't have any experience with higher end watches so those are just my onions.


----------



## Ananda

Raez said:


> Certainly a valid argument sir, no doubt about that one. ;-)
> 
> However, I don't think there's an absolute answer to this question. Honestly, I don't think the question is really asking for an answer. It's almost rhetorical in its nature.
> 
> As far as Fossil (and others like it) go, when I saw a fossil before I was a WIS (well maybe just WI :-d), I was not terribly impressed. They ARE cheap, they ARE made for the masses, and they ARE common. I view Rolex in the same category, but I think putting Patek & Lange in that same category might be a little stretch. I find it hard to imagine that any owner of an A. Lange & Sonne watch would not have any appreciate for fine timepieces. I mean, at least they're all mechanical.
> 
> In my book, it goes sort of like this...
> 
> Fashion/Statement (Low End to High End)
> 
> 
> Fossil/Swiss Army etc.
> Fashion Brands/TAG etc.
> Rolex/SOME Breitlings/SOME Omegas
> Complicated/Advanced
> 
> 
> Seiko/Orient/Hamilton/Citizen etc.
> Oris/Longines/Small Companies (Stowa, MKII, Ocean 7 etc.)
> Doxa/Ball/Patek/Lange/Omega/IWC etc.
> Again, just my thoughts here. I certainly don't have any experience with higher end watches so those are just my onions.


and sir, your 'onions' brings tears to my eyes. your disparagement of rolex is utterly ridiculous. to even suggest that there is anything 'fossilesque' about rolex is...


----------



## gerrylb

Ah, watch_art's a teacher! That makes a hell of a difference, that means he has every right to make fun of fellow teachers! Trust me, I've been teaching for over a decade and one of my favorite hobbies is poking fun at fellow faculty! They, of course, return the favor. Apologies for the earlier, snide comment. 

Back OnT: Fashion brands, IMO, play an important role in the watch industry. If not for the popular name recognition provided by labels like Kenneth Cole, ****, Nautica, Diesel, etc., there'd be much fewer people out there actually wearing a watch. And often, that's where this WIS craziness all begins. Granted, maybe 5% of those people will actually graduate to wanting to learn a little more about time pieces than mere branding, but how many of us here started out with a Fossil or Guess wrist watch before exploring the other options available?


----------



## gerrylb

Raez said:


> In my book, it goes sort of like this...
> 
> Fashion/Statement (Low End to High End)
> 
> 
> Fossil/Swiss Army etc.
> Fashion Brands/TAG etc.
> Rolex/SOME Breitlings/SOME Omegas


Uh-oh, I hear some knives being sharpened as I type.


----------



## Eric L.

Keep it friendly, folks.


----------



## novedl

come on guys, lets not beat up on these kids and place them in a perpetual state of being defensive the way some of you did Enzotemko~i enjoy the back and forth discussion but lets remember that we can all disagree without being disagreeable.|>
just remember we were all young once and for some *odd* reason gave our limited knowledge and marginal experiences far more weight than they deserved:-s


----------



## novedl

Tragic said:


> The op isn't a newb.
> He's just reflecting the attitude anyone would soon pick up on watch forums.
> No matter how many ppl. post here to the contrary.


 no he is not a newb however he may be on the more youthful side of the forum age spectrum. i am glad that i joined here with some age and life experiences or else my attitude may be similar to the OP's. but i doubt it!


----------



## nunocrt

Here's my one cent oppinion:

If it weren't for fashion brands most of people wouldn't even be wearing a watch. I beleive these brands have their place in the market, as they are in some cases the step towards getting better pieces. I say this because I started out with casios and swatch's, and lattely fossil. Only the last four watches are more expensive ones. It's a well known fact that these fashion brands don't have much of a customer service but hey you have to start somewhere. Not everyone is fortunate enough to receive an expensive watch at a young age.
And yes I do agree thame some pieces are way over priced, but have yet to see pieces falling off of them. But still think it's a bit of a strech to just say they suck. To each they're own.


----------



## kiwidj

Guys, looks like we now have a forum dedicated to fashion brand watches. Post all your favourites here...

https://www.watchuseek.com/forumdisplay.php?f=386

:-!


----------



## AAWATCHES

Nothing wrong with fashion watches, some are very good quality. Not every can afford high end watches and many do not care they just want to know the time. I own a few fashion watches myself and i think some are actually very stylish and well made. The only thing that bugs me is some of these fashion watches are no where near the quality of a good watch and people will pay top dollar because it has some famous name attached to it.


----------



## cbeeches

You are too hung up on price point. To me Function is the top consideration although I do have some more expensive pieces. One of my Favorite watches is something I picked up on Ebay for $15. Though it cannot be considered a Fashion brand now, I think that was the original intent when it was made prior to the "Fashion" trend of today.









This one below could be considered the Original "Fashion" brand. Although I don't wear it hardly at all, I keep a Battery in it and it still runs like a charm. Cost $199. back in 1986, not a cheap watch in those days. I wore it as a daily wear for years and derived a lot of pleasure from it. I suspect the same type of Pleasure many Fashion brand wearers get today out of what they wear.
In a way your comments remind me of the person who wants to tell me wwhats in a Hot Dog. I don't care, I like Hot Dogs and will continue to like them regardless of what anti- hotdoggers say.


----------



## Halvis

matt.wu said:


> I actually really like a lot of offerings from Fossil, and though I've owned watches worth 50x more, I still am very happy wearing it (and not afraid to put it in my sig :-d)


Well said. This has been a very interesting thread. "Elitism" exists and often appeals to human emotion, and we see it used in advertising and marketing ploys every day. We all have certain qualities in a product that we wish to purchase and own, and they are not the same in all of us, nor do we put an equal emphasis on the same qualities, nor can we force our choices on others. In my case for instance, I was certainly more interested in how a watch looked when I was younger, than other qualities. The older I get the more interested in craftsmanship, quality and reliability I become.

Certainly first and foremost, a watch is for telling time and Seiko and Citizen do that well, with decent quality and reliability. I would have to agree with Watch Art that perhaps parents should try to encourage their kids more towards reliable and quality choices than "fashion", in all of their purchasing decisions, but that is easier said than done.

I am 50, and one thing that has changed and really bugs me in these modern times, is the throwaway society we have become. We import products that are so inexpensive, it is no longer economically sound to bother repairing them. Therefore many service industries have vanished, perhaps forever. I prefer paying more for an item that is more expensive, and is serviceable. I abhor filling landfills with things that no longer work, or are no longer "fashionable".


----------



## Janne

cbeeches said:


> In a way your comments remind me of the person who wants to tell me wwhats in a Hot Dog. I don't care, I like Hot Dogs and will continue to like them regardless of what anti- hotdoggers say.


I used to work in a factory where they made sausages and other cold cuts. I will spare you guys what goes inside a sausage...
Oh yeah, still eat and love them!

That Lorus reminds me of old days. I had a very similar one, but white plastic case and strap.
Worked well. I still have it somewhere!

I am pleased to say that the wise Management of the WUS has added a new Forum, a Forum for Fashion Watches!!
So, do not be shy, go and post them!!
I have a few and my son has a few himself, and no, mine are not in my Signature! ;-)


----------



## Janne

Should not this excellent Thread better be moved to the new Forum?


----------



## Guest

Janne said:


> Should not this excellent Thread better be moved to the new Forum?


I wll leave it up to our Admin.;-)


----------



## Gansan

No, I will not buy one. Nothing wrong with them, but brands are compartmentalized in my mind, I guess.:think:

I will not buy a watch from ,say,Tommy Hilfiger. Neither will I buy a TV from Honda nor a Motorbike from Sony!


----------



## watch_art

Halvis said:


> I am 50, and one thing that has changed and really bugs me in these modern times, is the throwaway society we have become. We import products that are so inexpensive, it is no longer economically sound to bother repairing them. Therefore many service industries have vanished, perhaps forever. I prefer paying more for an item that is more expensive, and is serviceable. I abhor filling landfills with things that no longer work, or are no longer "fashionable".


i was thinking about that this morning. was remembering a time when cars were meant to be worked on and taken care of for years and years. now it's not worth it. or for a while it wasn't. is anything from the 90s (especially GM, hyundai, and others) worth messing with? my mechanic turns people away all the time who drive some of these cars b/c it's not worth his time or their money to work on it. fix this, next week it's something else, and it goes on and on. so it's cheaper to get another car and throw the old one away.



> I will not buy a watch from ,say,Tommy Hilfiger.


they do make a nice shirt though huh?


----------



## TheWalrus

Raez said:


> Certainly a valid argument sir, no doubt about that one. ;-)
> 
> However, I don't think there's an absolute answer to this question. Honestly, I don't think the question is really asking for an answer. It's almost rhetorical in its nature.
> 
> As far as Fossil (and others like it) go, when I saw a fossil before I was a WIS (well maybe just WI :-d), I was not terribly impressed. They ARE cheap, they ARE made for the masses, and they ARE common. I view Rolex in the same category, but I think putting Patek & Lange in that same category might be a little stretch. I find it hard to imagine that any owner of an A. Lange & Sonne watch would not have any appreciate for fine timepieces. I mean, at least they're all mechanical.
> 
> In my book, it goes sort of like this...
> 
> Fashion/Statement (Low End to High End)
> 
> 
> Fossil/Swiss Army etc.
> Fashion Brands/TAG etc.
> Rolex/SOME Breitlings/SOME Omegas
> Complicated/Advanced
> 
> 
> Seiko/Orient/Hamilton/Citizen etc.
> Oris/Longines/Small Companies (Stowa, MKII, Ocean 7 etc.)
> Doxa/Ball/Patek/Lange/Omega/IWC etc.
> Again, just my thoughts here. I certainly don't have any experience with higher end watches so those are just my onions.


The problem I have is the assumption that, simply because a product (watch or not) is 'made for the masses', or inexpensive', it's inherently had. Not everyone cares about watches - that isn't a fault.


----------



## niles316

Gansan said:


> I will not buy a watch from ,say,Tommy Hilfiger.


My wife has 2 Hilfiger watches for men (cos she likes big watches) n i think they are lovely. I think when it comes to fashion watches,we focus more on the design of the watch rather than the movement. After all,any decent movement is reliable in telling accurate time. But if a design u like can only be found in a fashion watch,what can one do?


----------



## RJRJRJ

novedl said:


> no he is not a newb however he may be on the more youthful side of the forum age spectrum. i am glad that i joined here with some age and life experiences or else my attitude may be similar to the OP's. but i doubt it!


He said he's a teacher.


----------



## Janne

RJRJRJ said:


> He said he's a teacher.


Must be a very young teacher.


----------



## watch_art

RJRJRJ said:


> He said he's a teacher.


i can still be a teacher and youthful at the same time. 29. still a baby (according to all my new 'mothers').


----------



## Janne

Said so! :-! :-d


----------



## RJRJRJ

watch_art said:


> i can still be a teacher and youthful at the same time. 29. still a baby (according to all my new 'mothers').


We're close in age, so im well aware of how youthful you might be. Im more on the immature side. I just mentioned the post before mentioned something about being hard on the kid or something like that.


----------



## novedl

RJRJRJ said:


> We're close in age, so im well aware of how youthful you might be. Im more on the immature side. I just mentioned the post before mentioned something about being hard on the kid or something like that.


 the quote was youthful, and my refferance was being made to raez who's views are far more shocking than that of the OP. i believe watch_art gets it, however raez has read what has been posted and imo gone a par5 farther than the OP. he is now engaged in point/counter point with walrus; that is a losing proposition. i remember another opinionated lad on this forum named enzotemko who was never quite able to find his footing after making some similar outrageous statements; he is now banned and i just would not like to see a repeat of that type of piling on. pardon me for caring!


----------



## Guest

Can we talk watches please.


----------



## ivan1998

We have fashion watchs made by good watch companys. Here one made by *Edel *for *Versace. *Good Movement *2894-A2. *


----------



## hpark21

Some interesting brands out there as well.

Calvin Klein watches have ETA movements and also their automatics will have Swiss ETA movement in them because Calvin Klein Jewellery division is owned by Swatch group. However, when you hear the name Calvin Klein watches, you will definitely think of "Designer brand".


----------



## novedl

my nephew would love that one. where did you get it?


----------



## kiwidj

I've owned a couple of Emporio Armani watches. Had no probs with those at all over the many years they were in my collection. They make some quite attractive pieces IMO, so I'd buy another one from that fashion brand.


----------



## Janne

Swatch, do they classify as Fashion watches, do you think?
I do.


----------



## RJRJRJ

novedl said:


> the quote was youthful, and my refferance was being made to raez who's views are far more shocking than that of the OP. i believe watch_art gets it, however raez has read what has been posted and imo gone a par5 farther than the OP. he is now engaged in point/counter point with walrus; that is a losing proposition. i remember another opinionated lad on this forum named enzotemko who was never quite able to find his footing after making some similar outrageous statements; he is now banned and i just would not like to see a repeat of that type of piling on. pardon me for caring!


I was referring to this line:


> come on guys, lets not beat up on these kids and place them in a perpetual state of being defensive the way some of you did Enzotemko


Either way, its irrelevant if I misinterpreted it. I thought you were indicating that the OP was a kid. No worries here :-!


----------



## Isthmus

watch_art said:


> i was thinking about that this morning. was remembering a time when cars were meant to be worked on and taken care of for years and years. now it's not worth it. or for a while it wasn't. is anything from the 90s (especially GM, hyundai, and others) worth messing with? my mechanic turns people away all the time who drive some of these cars b/c it's not worth his time or their money to work on it. fix this, next week it's something else, and it goes on and on. so it's cheaper to get another car and throw the old one away.


didn't you say you were 29? There is no way you could remember the days when cars were made to be something you could work on in your average home garage (at least not extensively).


----------



## Raez

Raez said:


> I don't mean this to be a shot at you, but I think you're being a little unfair, even if he was a student.
> 
> At no point did he say anything about criticizing anybody, and I'm fairly certain he didn't want to either. If you look at the thread title, you'll notice it says "why fashion brands suck." not "why people who wear fashion brands suck." I have a similar distaste for fashion brands, but when I see somebody with a fashion watch I don't think "Wow what a loser that guy overpaid for a mediocre watch and he thinks he looks cool." I think one of two things, either "Poor guy has never been to WUS, doesn't know he could get a much better watch for the money." (seiko, orient etc etc ec.) or I think "That guy doesn't care about what's inside his watch, and that's fine with me."
> 
> Either way, I've never judged anybody on what watch their wearing, unless I think it's ugly/flamboyant in which case I just think they're style is not great.
> 
> Again, please don't take this as a retort, it's just my 0 cents on the issue. (sorry, spent every last penny on these damned watches :-d:-d:-d)





Raez said:


> Certainly a valid argument sir, no doubt about that one. ;-)
> 
> However, I don't think there's an absolute answer to this question. Honestly, I don't think the question is really asking for an answer. It's almost rhetorical in its nature.
> 
> As far as Fossil (and others like it) go, when I saw a fossil before I was a WIS (well maybe just WI :-d), I was not terribly impressed. They ARE cheap, they ARE made for the masses, and they ARE common. I view Rolex in the same category, but I think putting Patek & Lange in that same category might be a little stretch. I find it hard to imagine that any owner of an A. Lange & Sonne watch would not have any appreciate for fine timepieces. I mean, at least they're all mechanical.
> 
> In my book, it goes sort of like this...
> 
> Fashion/Statement (Low End to High End)
> 
> 
> Fossil/Swiss Army etc.
> Fashion Brands/TAG etc.
> Rolex/SOME Breitlings/SOME Omegas
> Complicated/Advanced
> 
> 
> Seiko/Orient/Hamilton/Citizen etc.
> Oris/Longines/Small Companies (Stowa, MKII, Ocean 7 etc.)
> Doxa/Ball/Patek/Lange/Omega/IWC etc.
> *Again, just my thoughts here. I certainly don't have any experience with higher end watches so those are just my opinions.*





novedl said:


> the quote was youthful, and my refferance was being made to raez who's views are far more shocking than that of the OP. i believe watch_art gets it, however raez has read what has been posted and imo gone a par5 farther than the OP. he is now engaged in point/counter point with walrus; that is a losing proposition. i remember another opinionated lad on this forum named enzotemko who was never quite able to find his footing after making some similar outrageous statements; he is now banned and i just would not like to see a repeat of that type of piling on. pardon me for caring!


Yikes bud! I'm afraid you're taking this entire discussion far, far too seriously, and that's coming from a fellow addict. :rodekaart

I'm not entirely sure what you find so utterly shocking about my opinions, which, might I add, are just that. I do apologize if you're an avid Rolex enthusiast and are offended at my view of the brand, but I don't consider my classification of Rolex to be a negative one. Take a look at the chart I'll attach, which would make it seem like somebody agrees with me a little bit. I consider Rolex to be a fantastic company. They make fantastic watches with, as far as I know, fantastic movements. Both my mother and my father own Rolexes. My father owns a few Breitlings and an Omega as well, and my collection would be very similar to his if I had the money. I'm not entirely sure what my proposition is, so I find it hard to believe that you can say it is a losing one. I don't really even have a proposition, I was just saying that I thought our friend Walrus was being the slightest bit tough on the guy. Honestly, I was just trying to incite a little conversation.:-d

I sincerely hope that nobody takes my opinions personally, because my opinions are about watches, not people. I am thoroughly enjoying my discourse with TheWalrus, and I hope he is doing the same. I really do love it when people are able to have mature discussion on the internet, as it is not a common thing. :-!

If you wouldn't mind, please point me to the part of my post that you consider so inappropriately outrageous, as I'd be glad to change it. If you are referring to my comments on Rolex or another brand, I highly doubt that stating your image of a brand is a ban-worthy offense here, but I could be wrong. :-s

Again, I truly do not mean to invite any negative attention towards myself, as this forum has been more helpful to me than any other I have ever been a member of. Honestly it's been more than just helpful, it's been extremely entertaining and a fantastic place to get my daily fix of watch pornography. :-d I certainly would not like to lose the privilege of membership here because of an opinion I have mentioned.:-x

Sorry, I know we wanted to keep this thread on topic, but I thought that post was in need of a response. I hope I didn't offend you mate, because there are no hard feelings on this end. :-!:-!:-!

P.S. I plan on purchasing this "fashion watch" in the near future:
http://us.burberry.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3638696&Source=feeds_google_base


----------



## watch_art

Isthmus said:


> didn't you say you were 29? There is no way you could remember the days when cars were made to be something you could work on in your average home garage (at least not extensively).


but those are the cars and trucks i grew up around. most of my friends and family have been wrench monkeys and mechanics. i've saved myself thousands in repair bills doing most of my own work.


----------



## Stern

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with fashion watches as long as you know what you're getting. Fashion watches are just that, for fashion. They looked great, and goes well with stylish clothes but they're not usually in great quality. On the other hand, they're inexpensive. After the fashion part of it gets old, it's difficult to unload them because they're worthless.

Not everyone cares what movement the watch has, where it is made, if it runs on battery, or the material of the crystal, especially if they're on a $100 budget. Sometimes people just buy stuff because it looks cool. Like buying necklaces.


----------



## novedl

Raez said:


> Yikes bud! I'm afraid you're taking this entire discussion far, far too seriously, and that's coming from a fellow addict. :rodekaart
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you find so utterly shocking about my opinions, which, might I add, are just that. I do apologize if you're an avid Rolex enthusiast and are offended at my view of the brand, but I don't consider my classification of Rolex to be a negative one. Take a look at the chart I'll attach, which would make it seem like somebody agrees with me a little bit. I consider Rolex to be a fantastic company. They make fantastic watches with, as far as I know, fantastic movements. Both my mother and my father own Rolexes. My father owns a few Breitlings and an Omega as well, and my collection would be very similar to his if I had the money. I'm not entirely sure what my proposition is, so I find it hard to believe that you can say it is a losing one. I don't really even have a proposition, I was just saying that I thought our friend Walrus was being the slightest bit tough on the guy. Honestly, I was just trying to incite a little conversation.:-d
> 
> I sincerely hope that nobody takes my opinions personally, because my opinions are about watches, not people. I am thoroughly enjoying my discourse with TheWalrus, and I hope he is doing the same. I really do love it when people are able to have mature discussion on the internet, as it is not a common thing. :-!
> 
> If you wouldn't mind, please point me to the part of my post that you consider so inappropriately outrageous, as I'd be glad to change it. If you are referring to my comments on Rolex or another brand, I highly doubt that stating your image of a brand is a ban-worthy offense here, but I could be wrong. :-s
> 
> Again, I truly do not mean to invite any negative attention towards myself, as this forum has been more helpful to me than any other I have ever been a member of. Honestly it's been more than just helpful, it's been extremely entertaining and a fantastic place to get my daily fix of watch pornography. :-d I certainly would not like to lose the privilege of membership here because of an opinion I have mentioned.:-x
> 
> Sorry, I know we wanted to keep this thread on topic, bu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t I thought that post was in need of a response. I hope I didn't offend you mate, because there are no hard feelings on this end. :-!:-!:-!
> 
> P.S. I plan on purchasing this "fashion watch" in the near future:
> http://us.burberry.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3638696&Source=feeds_google_base


no worries here guys, i like the give and take among gentlemen; helps to keep things eh.......lively!;-) enjoy your day friend|>
regards, 
dev|>


----------



## H3O+

> and sir, your 'onions' brings tears to my eyes. your disparagement of rolex is utterly ridiculous. to even suggest that there is anything 'fossilesque' about rolex is...


I believe in his statement that the OP of this was not comparing Rolex, nor some Breitlings, nor some Omegas to Fossil in terms of quality. Rather, I think that he was saying wearing a Rolex/ Omega/ Breitling was a statement as to to a certain type of fashion. Now, I do not think this is true across the board, but in some circumstances, it is. E.g. the majority (which, granted, isn't that much) of the Breitling for Bentley models that I see are on the wrists of young African-American men (generally working in auto sales.) Likewise, I live in a community centered around a golf course (a very nice one, but a golf course none the less, and no, I do not golf) and I do see quite a bit of Rolex. The majority of Fossil watches that I see are on males of my age and go nicely (or not) with their American Eagle polos, Nike Airs, and Oakleys. See what I mean?



> yeah, i saw one of my parents the other day and she asked me if i'm the watch guy her son keeps talking about. i'm the art teacher, but the kids also know i love watches. and everytime a kid has something on their wrist i make a point to go over and check it out. there are a ton of watches that are very similar to some of the different g shocks, but cheaper and not as durable. but anyway, i had worked on this kids watch a couple times (bracelet screws and batt change) and his mom told me the stem fell out and that she was gonna go get em something cheap from walmart. i suggested a g shock over everything else there just b/c of how tough they are. casio does make a great product, and they're in the same price range as some of the fossils, or like he had, a 'field and stream'. what's that? field and stream? i think his mom told me it was close to $150.


Exactly. There are a lot of great, durable, good-looking watches out there, which can still be fashionable: Swatch, Timex, Casio, some (dare I say) Invicta, Seiko, Citizen, Orient...



> possibly because there _are_ a lot of snotty, albeit well spoken, kids that frequent these sorts of sites


Hey, don't hate. :-d



> This one below could be considered the Original "Fashion" brand. Although I don't wear it hardly at all, I keep a Battery in it and it still runs like a charm. Cost $199. back in 1986, not a cheap watch in those days. I wore it as a daily wear for years and derived a lot of pleasure from it. I suspect the same type of Pleasure many Fashion brand wearers get today out of what they wear.
> In a way your comments remind me of the person who wants to tell me wwhats in a Hot Dog. I don't care, I like Hot Dogs and will continue to like them regardless of what anti- hotdoggers say.


Hey, if anybody disses this watch, they deserve a smack upside the head. The Wolf wore on of these... it gets a big +1. 


> No, I will not buy one. Nothing wrong with them, but brands are compartmentalized in my mind, I guess.:think:
> 
> I will not buy a watch from ,say,Tommy Hilfiger. Neither will I buy a TV from Honda nor a Motorbike from Sony!


I can see what you mean. Let companies do what they are best at doing 
and designed to do. 


> We have fashion watchs made by good watch companys. Here one made by *Edel *for *Versace. *Good Movement *2894-A2. *


The Chanel J12 is made by AP (IIRC) and the new line of Ralph Lauren watches will be made by JLC (IIRC) and priced accordingly. 


> Calvin Klein watches have ETA movements and also their automatics will have Swiss ETA movement in them because Calvin Klein Jewellery division is owned by Swatch group. However, when you hear the name Calvin Klein watches, you will definitely think of "Designer brand".


See above.


> Swatch, do they classify as Fashion watches, do you think?
> I do.


Swatch builds very fashionable watches and advertises like a fashion company. That said, they do build very good watches. Their new line of automatic chronographs looks especially exciting...


----------



## watch_art

wow. this thread has exceeded any expectations that i had. i figured a few replies. this is very cool. and i'm definitely learning a lot. thanks guys and gals.


----------



## checknwatch

Janne said:


> Swatch, do they classify as Fashion watches, do you think?
> I do.


+1|>

I think they do.

Swatch is a fashion watch by virtue of its design and purpose. Obviously, the swatch watch concept and brand carries with it a watchmaking heritage that's unique among affordable fashion watch makers, especially in the lowest price segments. What I find absolutely brilliant about swatch is how they dominate the bottom of this market without adversely completing with the other fashion brands, many of whom source their movements from ETA. Swatch "pwned" the fashion watch market! ;-)


----------



## AlexPanzer

I used to work for Macy's in the buying offices and I am pretty sure that Fossil was Macy's #1 vendor in terms of product volume when it came to watches. I only wear Fossil, Kenneth Cole and now started buying Invictas. What I really like about these watches is how they look and how affordable and sometimes cheap they can be bought for. Personally I don't care what is inside the watch and the movements, as long at the piece ticks and looks good then I am happy. All of my Coles I bought on eBay for cheap because they were all "broken"/dead batteries, so I quickly replaced the batteries and they work fine now.


----------



## exxondus

the word is 'prefer' not 'hate' :-!


----------



## Arthur Chan

YOUR ALL PANSIES!!!

i was hoping this would turn into riot! and the thread would be deleted!
since everyone has become EXTRA METRO TODAY i will slap some $alls on and start this.

FASHION BRANDS ARE THE BEST!!!! all you need is a quartz watch that tells better time than any auto and you dont even have to wind the darn thing every 2-3 days. LOOK watches are worn in todays society as a statement. but what statement are you really saying when your wearing a high end watch?? your saying "im old, im boring, i dont need to keep up with the times because im slow in the head" you dont get it do you? hello?!? high end brands have been pushing the same styles since the beginning of TIME!!! 

"good fashion is meant to be made unfashionable" -some guy from Chenel said that i think.

im willing to bet that rolex will still be making the date just 30years from now!.
most fashion brand watches are inexpensive!!!! how great is that!! who cares if your HUGO BOSS watch breaks cuz your auntie sat on it, GET A NEW ONE!!! 
i predict that the next crazy will be the I-watch!!! everyone will have one and if you dont have one, NOONE WILL LOVE YOU






(i have my popcorn ready!!)


----------



## Arthur Chan

TheWalrus said:


> Still disagree vehemently with the assertion that fashion watches suck though.


fashion watches suck when the girl next door prefers my armani watch over your Hamilton Khaki Automatic; Seiko SKX013K1 Diver's 200M; Tissot PRS200; Generic Swiss Military; Jorg Gray 6500 "Obama Watch"


----------



## Reno

Arthur Chan said:


> YOUR ALL PANSIES!!!
> 
> i was hoping this would turn into riot! and the thread would be deleted!
> since everyone has become EXTRA METRO TODAY i will slap some $alls on and start this.
> 
> FASHION BRANDS ARE THE BEST!!!! all you need is a quartz watch that tells better time than any auto and you dont even have to wind the darn thing every 2-3 days. LOOK watches are worn in todays society as a statement. but what statement are you really saying when your wearing a high end watch?? your saying "im old, im boring, i dont need to keep up with the times because im slow in the head" you dont get it do you? hello?!? high end brands have been pushing the same styles since the beginning of TIME!!!
> 
> "good fashion is meant to be made unfashionable" -some guy from Chenel said that i think.
> 
> im willing to bet that rolex will still be making the date just 30years from now!.
> most fashion brand watches are inexpensive!!!! how great is that!! who cares if your HUGO BOSS watch breaks cuz your auntie sat on it, GET A NEW ONE!!!
> i predict that the next crazy will be the I-watch!!! everyone will have one and if you dont have one, NOONE WILL LOVE YOU
> 
> (i have my popcorn ready!!)


:-d :-d


----------



## BR549

It's funny all of the snobbery you see on watch forums about different brands, and "crap" now all of a sudden ( at least on the first page) there is no such thing as a bad watch, just a bad person?


----------



## Ray MacDonald

I'm supposed to be Moderating here and I have to tell you I LOVE this thread LOL. :-d:-d:-d :-!


----------



## Janne

Soon maybe ALL watches will be classed as "fashion watches"?
I mean, we do not really need to wear a watch, do we?

To wear a Diver (all, from the cheapest (Invicta?) to the most expensive (JLC?) is fashion, is it not?


----------



## Ahriman4891

Funny thread, and a semi-serious reply:

While I understand that all watch companies operate with the primary purpose of making money, the fashion brands are more blatant about it. I am a watch enthusiast, and the idea of a disposable watch just does not bode well with me -- and the majority of these "fashion" watches are exactly that. I like watches that are made well enough that it's worth it to take care of them.

Also, Arthur Chan, you sure you got your quotation right?


Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel said:


> *Fashion fades, only style remains the same.*


Maybe yours came from a different dude? In any case, I'd go for a watch with STYLE every time.


----------



## BR549

La la la, I like hippo bridges









OH .... THE BRIDGE IS OUT









AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH









MY BRAINS MY BRAINS


----------



## Lemaniac40

While I actually Think Fossil and Zodiac should be excluded from fashoin brands this is why they suck,


They are watches that have absolutely no input from the fashion designer
as far as the look of the watch goes.

They are watch "blanks: if you will with Tommy hilfiger, or kenneth cole stamped on them,

hek you could even get one with your name on it. doubt if it would sell but you could wear it................


----------



## celloboy

No one mentioning the ultimate fashion brand in watches, Cartier? Yeah they really suck :roll:


----------



## por44

"To each his own"


----------



## co556guy

I prefer a good quality product (in whatever I buy) over a "name" stamped on the side of it. 

Secondly, I prefer something that I find pleasing to they eye. Often times these two "wants" meet and we find a product that we like based on those two criterion. 

The issue here is not that fashion watches suck, it is that most people don't understand why we spend so much money on something that appears to be of no better appearance than a fossil watch (they do have some good looking watches). They just don't see the need to delve deeper into the subject because their tastes/desires/etc run along a different path. I am sure that they are a huge fan of some obstuse subject that I could care less about. 

Who cares what someone else wears/buys/likes? Honestly, I buy what I do because I like it. I could care less what someone else thinks, unless they are more knowledgeable on the subject and I am seeking advice. 

Do I personally like fashion watches? No. But that doesn't mean that they don't have a place. If someone will buy it, it has a place in the market and we should celebrate the fact that someone is doing business. We need more people doing business, not less.


----------



## watch_art

Ray MacDonald said:


> I'm supposed to be Moderating here and I have to tell you I LOVE this thread LOL. :-d:-d:-d :-!


:-!:-d


----------



## niles316

Lemaniac40 said:


> hek you could even get one with your name on it. doubt if it would sell but you could wear it................


Like this? :-d


----------



## Lemaniac40

There ya go:-!


----------



## real_time

Some commented that although many of us does not use the feature of the watches we purchase. I agree, I have a Sea Dweller. However, please be mindful that this is not as superficial as it looks if judging using the criticism. 

I was NEVER a watch fanatic, when I bought a Guess Watch, I thought that a S$90 watch was hell of a expensive. However, the ball was tossed to my court when my girlfriend mentioned about the purchase of a Tag Heuer Aquaracer.

I did some research, along the way, I got "poisoned". 

I was enlightened that a watch is not about telling time, it is about the PEOPLE that earns the craftsmanship through time, sweat and blood to produce such exquisite watches. Even though nowadays, most timepiece are mass-produced. The blood can never be seen on our watches now, however, the DNA lives on forever.

The next enlightenement I obtained is the reflection of what watches I don. I know what can they do for me, who knows? I may need it the future. Point to ponder: Most modern TVs can set up to 99 channels. Do we use all? Everyday? 

People buys minute (mechanical) minute repeaters because they realize and acknowledge the wisdom and complications behind.


I bought my Sea Dweller after some research and analysis. This watch went through the years of judgment by many other owners in the world. From both professional reviewers/makers as well as critics. I have a picture of a Sea Dweller that went through a bike accident. FYI, it survived. The crystal, bracelet, cover etc was a goner, but the heart remains strong.

My definition of a fashion watch has been mentioned by some of the gentlemen in this thread. The watches are produced (out of their trade) for the pure sake of getting the market pie. To earn money!! To mention a few: Calvin Klein, Diesel, Emporio Armani, and so on. Most of us know a Swiss manufactured watch's selling price is about 300 to 500 percent more than the cost price. How about quartz Fashion Watches? I am betting that a cost price of a S$400 Emporio Armani watch is just a mere max of S$50. 800%!!! Worst of all, it depreciates almost 70 to 80% from the moment you purchase it. UNLESS I am buying the technology or craftsmanship, if not, I stay clear of quartz.

Some watches are of average, if not good quality, HOWEVER, the duel edged tool, marketing, spoils them. IMO, I deem Tag Heuer watches such as the Carrera, Aquaracers etc as a fashion statement, they rely heavily on marketing. Those people who can afford these watches brag and show-off when they don't know what is the core rational prior the purchase. The crowd follows and it multiplies so rapidly that it becomes another just another watch.

Citizen and Casio original trade IS watchmaking. Although most of their watches are not mechanical, they produce amazing technological watches. We can actually take reference from replicas, if a watch is not worth the money nor time, why would replicates of the brand exist? We cannot deny on occasions, they still produce aesthetically looking (Fashion) watches. This is just for survivability. 

End of the day, the watch you are wearing wants to communicate with people, telling them what you know about the watch and also reflects and reveals a little something about yourself.

:-d


----------



## uniquewatches

Aren't all watches "fashion watches" to a great extent? Go buy a "fashion" magazine. You won't see many ads by Fossil or Kenneth Cole, you'll see ads from Rolex and Tag Heuer and Breitling and the likes. Do people with really expensive watches hide them under long sleeve shirts because they''re so hideous, though works of art mechanically?;-)

I understand what is being referred to in this forum and context as a "fashion" watch, I just believe that they are all for fashion to a great extent, in actuality those that spend more on watches are more likely to show them off and try to impress others with them, thus being "fashionable". I've asked many people what type of watch they have, and they'll often say, "oh, it's just a Fossil", or something like that. They aren't trying to be stylish, they saw a watch they liked and could afford and bought it. If they were concerned with being fashionable, they'd put more cash on the line to try and impress someone. Now, some are trying to be fashionable to the best of their budget, and there's nothing wrong with that either. 

Just my 2 cents.

Personally, I like "fashion" watches as they are referred to here, affordable watches, etc. I just like what I can afford that catches my eye. And, if I have the option to buy one watch for $300 or three $100 watches, I'll go for the three just because I like variety and unique pieces and really don't care what name they have on them if they run and look cool to me. 

To each his or her own.


----------



## Shogan191

Wow, I've been reading this thread so long that I forgot what it was about.

If I remember correctly it was about fashion watches. I'm not sure what actually defines a fashion watch but I've seen many I ilke. I have a Fredrique Constant that I think might be considered a fashion watch. I love the watch. It's a chrono, seems well made. Works great and keeps excellent time. I bought it from a jewler that was dropping the line. NOS and at at a great price. Retail several years ago was $1900. I paid $600 otd.

I'm just glad people are still wearing watches. I wore a $40.00 Bean catalogue watch for more than 10 years. It was in saltwater everyday as I worked in saltwater. Cheap watch, quartz, finally sprung a leak after 10 years. I worked in aquariums so it saw some hard active underwater activity but ususally not deeper than about 2.5 ft. I think the shallow low pressure helped it but keep in mind I was stacking rock scrubbing and scraping, and even shoveling. I loved that watch. 

How would you define an unfashionable watch? LOL


----------



## mraex

Shogan191 said:


> How would you define an unfashionable watch? LOL


Well, I don't think there are any permanently unfashionable watches, but if a watch sends a wrong message in the given context, the watch is temporarily unfashionable. I'm not talking about, say, wearing a Timex for a board of directors meeting (think Steve Jobs or Ted Turner), but a Rolex worn at a peace rally would definitely be unfashionable.


----------



## watch_art

mraex said:


> Well, I don't think there are any permanently unfashionable watches, but if a watch sends a wrong message in the given context, the watch is temporarily unfashionable. I'm not talking about, say, wearing a Timex for a board of directors meeting (think Steve Jobs or Ted Turner), but a Rolex worn at a peace rally would definitely be unfashionable.


what if you got the rolex at a pawn shop?

:-d


----------



## f4nt0m4s

Heh, I was at TJ Maxx and saw a fun looking Tommy Hilfiger watch for a rock bottom price and figured what the heck. It has blatantly "borrowed" styling cues from Bell & Ross, but at the price point that most B&R pieces cost, couldn't it be argued that purchasing a B&R watch is making a fashion statement/choice? (BTW I love Bell&Ross and wish I could afford a luxury item like that)

I realize many WIS have an appreciation for the history of watch brands, or a deep respect for automatic movements and old school horology. But I think at the end of the day you should buy a watch because you find it appealing and you want to wear it. A watch is intended to tell the time, and the best mileage you can get out of your watch is if you get joy out of checking the time. 

I have nothing against fashion brands. It is a little lame when people buy a watch (or clothes, or anything) for the perceived value that that item may have. When I was in high school everyone had a Fossil watch because it was the "cool" thing to do, not because everyone really enjoyed watches. Likewise, I see many business professionals wearing pricey watches (I see a lot of Submariners and Explorers) and I question how many of them care about the rich history or the movement in their piece.

To an extent all watches are fashion choices, otherwise we would all wear monocolor, cheap quartz pieces. 
You should do/wear what you like, life is short. :-d

(And for the most part, the watch brand you subscribe to is a business trying to make money. I suppose this could be argued against with all the boutique companies emerging of late, but still...)


----------



## c2transform

IMHO it's all preference. Some people may start off with fashion watches and then work their way into the "nicer" ones we at WUS prefer. Some may just like them and not consider anything else. There is nothing wrong with fashion watches unless you want to make it wrong. So long as the watch tells the time, anything else is purely personal preference. We are, however, all entitled to our opinions


----------



## outatime

watch_art said:


> what if you got the rolex at a pawn shop?
> :-d


I got mine from eeekBay:-d



f4nt0m4s said:


> Heh, I was at TJ Maxx and saw a fun looking Tommy Hilfiger watch for a rock bottom price and figured what the heck. It has blatantly "borrowed" styling cues from Bell & Ross, but at the price point that most B&R pieces cost, couldn't it be argued that purchasing a B&R watch is making a fashion statement/choice? (BTW I love Bell&Ross and wish I could afford a luxury item like that)
> 
> Me too!!!
> 
> I realize many WIS have an appreciation for the history of watch brands, or a deep respect for automatic movements and old school horology. But I think at the end of the day you should buy a watch because you find it appealing and you want to wear it. A watch is intended to tell the time, and the best mileage you can get out of your watch is if you get joy out of checking the time. :thanks
> 
> I have nothing against fashion brands. It is a little lame when people buy a watch (or clothes, or anything) for the perceived value that that item may have. When I was in high school everyone had a Fossil watch because it was the "cool" thing to do, not because everyone really enjoyed watches. Likewise, I see many business professionals wearing pricey watches (I see a lot of Submariners and Explorers) and I question how many of them care about the rich history or the movement in their piece.
> 
> To an extent all watches are fashion choices, otherwise we would all wear monocolor, cheap quartz pieces.
> You should do/wear what you like, life is short. :-d
> 
> (And for the most part, the watch brand you subscribe to is a business trying to make money. I suppose this could be argued against with all the boutique companies emerging of late, but still...)


You hit the nail right on the head:-!


----------



## Ray MacDonald

This is a Guess Collection I got a few years ago at a Timex Outlet near Baltimore. It's been a fine performer. It looks like a Cartier Pasha. I don't wear it to impress anyone.


----------



## 2wheelsmoker

IMHO I feel that fashion watches are replaceable to the owner. There's no point in arguing a watch's utility/appearance vs. brand/price because that is subjective to each owner's disposable income and intended use. However, how an owner perceives a watch and the owner's appreciation dictates how "disposable" a watch really is. 

If someone decide to buy a watch because it matches his favorite shoes and polo shirt I do not necessarily dismiss it as a fashion item. It may make him feel the way no other watch can. However, if the watch is viewed as only a temporary boost of one's ego and appearance with no type of attachment (physical, functional, or emotion) then the watch serves merely as a replaceable tool. Other "tools" can serve said purpose if it achieves the effects the owner desires. This is what I perceive as a fashion item. 

Example: John Smith drives a Prius. He might drive the Prius because he commutes 300 miles a day and wants to use less gas. He might drive a Prius because he works for the environmental protection agency and they supply him with the car. He might drive the Prius so his tree-hugging friends give him the thumbs up. He might drive the Prius so he can deride his neighbors gas-guzzling SUV and sports car. He might not even know it's a hybrid! Be it whatever combination of reasons, if he sees the Prius as something to just get from point A to point B then it's purely replaceable by any other car and he could get similar satisfaction from other cars. Or he really could think it's a great car and wouldn't want to drive anything else because this car is something special to him (even if it's for the same reasons above).

It's more about how someone perceives things than the actual things themselves. The nuance is subtle. There is a time and place for fashion watches but I would rather spend my time owning ones I can cherish. Best of luck to those that think otherwise. It's your money and I wouldn't dare tell you how to spend it.  *though sometimes I might shake my head disapprovingly behind your back*


----------



## WatchAdct

c2transform said:


> IMHO it's all preference. Some people may start off with fashion watches and then work their way into the "nicer" ones we at WUS prefer. Some may just like them and not consider anything else. There is nothing wrong with fashion watches unless you want to make it wrong. So long as the watch tells the time, anything else is purely personal preference. We are, however, all entitled to our opinions


+1. Took the words out of my mouth.


----------



## SHANE 1000

What good can a watch be that is sold for a few bucks in a mall boutique and is bought because it matches a certain outfit you might wear?.

Quality cannot possibly be expected in a non jeweller type shop especially at the price point.

A name like Fossil is there for the people that do not know or maybe do not have the WIS bug, like we all seem to have.


----------



## poboxw

Eric L. said:


> In the end, I am pretty happy that people wear watches at all - its better than going naked wristed and pulling out the cell phone to tell the time!


So fashion watches are the better of two evils? :-d

Really though, some value brands and design, trends and fashion, others history and movement, precision and durability. But most have a mix of emphases. To each his/her own.


----------



## poboxw

SHANE 1000 said:


> What good can a watch be that is sold for a few bucks in a mall boutique and is bought because it matches a certain outfit you might wear?.
> 
> Quality cannot possibly be expected in a non jeweller type shop especially at the price point.
> 
> A name like Fossil is there for the people that do not know or maybe do not have the WIS bug, like we all seem to have.


Some would argue that the value in these affordable watches is just that, affordable. While some spend thousands on one grail, others spend hundreds on tens of watches to suit their mood. To each his/her own. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but it's really just that simple.


----------



## imh00052

I bought my first Fossil when I was around 14. I still have it, a Fossil Blue moon phase. I have had this watch for over 15 years and changed the battery once. It was a true beater when I got it and was the only one I wore for years.I had some awesome times with that watch and it is one of the most valuble to me. I have a soft spot for Fossil but I don't take people hatin on them personal.

Fossil is a darn good watchmaker. I think while they may be a "fashion" brand thier watches are outstanding at the pricepoint. Some people don't have thousands of dollars to buy watches. So when collecting Rolexes and Omegas is out of the question you learn to appreciate the cheaper watches. 

Fossils are accurate, durable, fashionable, and cheap. You can collect them annd not break the bank. When comparing Fossil watches to other brands in the price range they hold up well. Not only that the customer service is outstanding. If your watch is broke and a store has it in stock they will replace it for you no questions asked. They have 11 year warrantys on watches you can get for around $40. The value for your money is there. I am always proud to wear a Fossil. :-!


----------



## Ecko

SHANE 1000 said:


> What good can a watch be that is sold for a few bucks in a mall boutique and is bought because it matches a certain outfit you might wear?.
> 
> Quality cannot possibly be expected in a non jeweller type shop especially at the price point.
> 
> A name like Fossil is there for the people that do not know or maybe do not have the WIS bug, like we all seem to have.


So you've never owned a Fossil yet you are commenting on their quality?

The real quality of a watch should be determined by how well does it keep time and how long will it last without failing, because in the end that is what a watch is supposed to do, that's it's purpose.

So if a $50 watch manages to keep time just as well and last as long as a $5000 watch, what makes the $5000 better?

As for buying a watch to match your outfit. We all have watches that we wear with different outfits. Whether it's your Hamilton/Fossil for the office or your Submariner/G Shock for a day at the park with your kid.


----------



## nsjong

Fashion watches suck?
Yet these "fashion" watches have a greater array and a hell lot more appealing designs than a lot of the "WIS" stuff that are around.

Why do you buy a specific car?
Is it all the mechanics? Or does aesthetics take some part?

Everyone is different; question if you will at the watches you own yourself, "fashion" watch haters. Did you buy your dive watches to dive? 
HAHAHA. That's a good one; why don't we all get some Doxa's and Breitiling's so we can go down a good 3000 feet and get crushed by the pressure?

More so, why do you wear matching socks if aesthetics have nothing to do with it? Why don't you wear mismatched shoes and etc.? They would still serve the function.

Damn whiners.
Why don't you then give your 10 year-old kid a Rolex so he knows how to "appreciate" a fine watch? Yeah, no, I thought not.

Like others said, preference is huge. 
Yeah, some people may wear Fossils, while some of you may wear more expensive watches but they may live in a 800-grand house while you live renting out an apartment floor. They may prioritize something else before watches.


----------



## dualtime

SHANE 1000 said:


> What good can a watch be that is sold for a few bucks in a mall boutique and is bought because it matches a certain outfit you might wear?.
> 
> Quality cannot possibly be expected in a non jeweller type shop especially at the price point.
> 
> A name like Fossil is there for the people that do not know or maybe do not have the WIS bug, like we all seem to have.


 Ridiculous and condescending statement.


----------



## buttonsrtoys

I find watches to be a lot like automobiles -- the well-made affordable ones are usually dull, the stylish affordable ones are usually not well-made, and the ones that are both stylish and well-made are too expensive for the average consumer. There are exceptions to this, of course, but for people like me that can't afford IWC and Breitling, it often comes down to making difficult choices between fashion and quality. Some days quality wins out, other days fashion. Personally, I hate making that choice and am hoping to find a brand that appeals to me in both camps that I can afford, but at the moment I'm still looking.


----------



## gregoron

watch_art said:


> so i was thinking the other day as i was changing batteries in some watches from different teachers at school, why it is that fashion brands suck.
> so far, all of the teachers either own fossil or kenneth cole.
> fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them. i bet if you asked them to name 10 high end brands, they could only come up with rolex and MAYBE omega.
> 
> so why is it that we here wis folk hate fashion brands so much?
> 
> i'd like this thread to be a place where we can point newbs to so they can understand a little more easily why fossil, gucci, and dolce and gabbana aren't taken seriously here and in the WUS world.


I'm new here but not new to other forums. This is a troll question right?


----------



## watch_art

gregoron said:


> I'm new here but not new to other forums. This is a troll question right?


no not really. it was just a dumb question, but it started it's own sub forum. that's worth something right?

so i have a new appreciation for all of the different watches there are now. and yeah, if somebody is wearing a watch, i guess that's better then not wearing one (maybe). *i* still wouldn't wear one. there are some cool lookin fossils and kenneth koles and what all, but i'd never own one. i just still don't see em being built well enough to justify spending that kind of money when you can still get a damn good seiko, citizen, alpha, or a number of other brands for the same amount. i'm not gonna hate on anybody about their choices though.

each to their own right?


----------



## Ecko

watch_art said:


> no not really. it was just a dumb question, but it started it's own sub forum. that's worth something right?
> 
> so i have a new appreciation for all of the different watches there are now. and yeah, if somebody is wearing a watch, i guess that's better then not wearing one (maybe). *i* still wouldn't wear one. there are some cool lookin fossils and kenneth koles and what all, but i'd never own one. i just still don't see em being built well enough to justify spending that kind of money when you can still get a damn good seiko, citizen, alpha, or a number of other brands for the same amount. i'm not gonna hate on anybody about their choices though.
> 
> each to their own right?


I trust Fossil watches over Alpha any day of the week. I've been swimming many times with a Fossil watch and they have never leaked. Just the over all feel of a Fossil is better then Alpha. Plus how many threads are there about how someone received an Alpha DOA or had it stop working within 30 days? Funny how just because a company makes diver homages they are thought of higher than a fashion brand even though they are obviously of cheaper quality. This is coming from someone who owns both brands not someone just making blind comments.

Once again, how can people make comments about Fossil watches quality if they never even owned one?

It seems like all the people in this thread saying that Fossil watches are good quality are people that have owned them, and all the people saying they suck have never owned one. So which group of people actually know what they're talking about?


----------



## watch_art

Ecko said:


> Once again, how can people make comments about Fossil watches quality if they never even owned one?
> 
> It seems like all the people in this thread saying that Fossil watches are good quality are people that have owned them, and all the people saying they suck have never owned one. So which group of people actually know what they're talking about?


i've owned them before, i've had several, and they're fine watches to a point. they tell time and hold up great if you take care of them, just like anything else i guess. but since i've started doing small work w/ watches, batteries, springbars, cleaning movements and all, i have handled lots of fossils, and i don't think the quality is all that great. i have a few alphas too, have been swimming and showering with them and generally beat them up like any other watch i own, and i've never had a problem with water. but i know qc can be sketchy. but qc can be poor with any brand as well...

and obviously i can't say that all fossils are poorly constructed, but some of them definitely are. but lots of other more expensive brands are poorly done as well...

and as to who knows what they're talking about? probably none of us. 
:-d :-!


----------



## dualtime

Ecko said:


> I trust Fossil watches over Alpha any day of the week. I've been swimming many times with a Fossil watch and they have never leaked. Just the over all feel of a Fossil is better then Alpha. Plus how many threads are there about how someone received an Alpha DOA or had it stop working within 30 days? Funny how just because a company makes diver homages they are thought of higher than a fashion brand even though they are obviously of cheaper quality. This is coming from someone who owns both brands not someone just making blind comments.
> 
> Once again, how can people make comments about Fossil watches quality if they never even owned one?
> 
> It seems like all the people in this thread saying that Fossil watches are good quality are people that have owned them, and all the people saying they suck have never owned one. So which group of people actually know what they're talking about?


Very well said. My sentiments exactly. Also, at least Fossil has some original designs.


----------



## imh00052

Ecko said:


> I trust Fossil watches over Alpha any day of the week. I've been swimming many times with a Fossil watch and they have never leaked. Just the over all feel of a Fossil is better then Alpha. Plus how many threads are there about how someone received an Alpha DOA or had it stop working within 30 days? Funny how just because a company makes diver homages they are thought of higher than a fashion brand even though they are obviously of cheaper quality. This is coming from someone who owns both brands not someone just making blind comments.
> 
> Once again, how can people make comments about Fossil watches quality if they never even owned one?
> 
> It seems like all the people in this thread saying that Fossil watches are good quality are people that have owned them, and all the people saying they suck have never owned one. So which group of people actually know what they're talking about?


+1 :-!

I have had alot of Fossil watches and they have never let me down. As a 15 year old kid I put my Fossil Blue through some sh:rodekaart. I only sent it in for a battery change once which they did for free or only the cost of me shipping the watch to the Fossil repair center. For $40-$80 on average you are not going to get heavy solid steel or a top of the line movement. What you will get is a reliable, durable, good looking watch for a very cheap price which is why people buy them in the first place.

I am a working man with two kids. I love watches and have a decent collection. I would love to own and wear expensive timepieces but do not have the money or lifestyle to. For me Fossil provides a good watch that I can wear when I am playing and working hard. I never bash high end brands other than saying they are overpriced at times yet the high end watch snobs are quick to hate on a brand that they know nothing about other than the price.


----------



## pra6425

I own a plethora fossils, and I have never had a problem with them. Obviously compared to some in my collection they may not seem to compare but its where I got my start. I've even dived at around 200 feet with a fossil and they didn't even fog up. Although, everyone does have a right to their opinion.


----------



## gregoron

watch_art said:


> no not really. it was just a dumb question, but it started it's own sub forum. that's worth something right?
> 
> so i have a new appreciation for all of the different watches there are now. and yeah, if somebody is wearing a watch, i guess that's better then not wearing one (maybe). *i* still wouldn't wear one. there are some cool lookin fossils and kenneth koles and what all, but i'd never own one. i just still don't see em being built well enough to justify spending that kind of money when you can still get a damn good seiko, citizen, alpha, or a number of other brands for the same amount. i'm not gonna hate on anybody about their choices though.
> 
> each to their own right?


I can see where you're coming from and yes, it's each to his/her own taste.

I have a couple of Kenneth Coles of the same style except they have different dials and leather buckles, which I replaced with deployments. I bought each for the color of belt/shoes I wear. So, for me this fashion brand has its place (i.e. fashion). I also like the way they look, reminiscent of vintage Omega dress watches with the domed crystals.

I also buy watches for their movements. I like automatics so I have a couple of Seiko automatics, a Swatch with an ETA 2842, and a vintage Zodiac with an ETA 2892 inside. I also have a Citizen Eco-Drive and had a Seiko Kinetic.

In short, each of my watches appeal to me in different ways. I bought each and wear each for a reason. But, if I were to be asked what is the most important aspect of a watch, I'd have to say accuracy first (that's why I wear my Eco-drive most of the time), the movement, and then the style.


----------



## David S

The clue's in the name.

Fashion watch manufacturers are primarily concerned with fashion. Not build quality, longevity, or accuracy. They may well produce some good watches, but that isn't the point of what they do.

Fashion is simply a way of getting people to part with more cash whilst they still have a perfectly serviceable shirt/dress/watch. They want you to buy a new watch every year (or more often), just because the last one doesn't match your trousers.

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with many of Fossil's watches, or Kenneth Coles, or anyone elses, it's the whole concept of fashion I find difficult to understand; express your individuality by being as homogenous as possible.

Wear what _you like_.


----------



## Ecko

David S said:


> The clue's in the name.
> 
> Fashion watch manufacturers are primarily concerned with fashion. Not build quality, longevity, or accuracy. They may well produce some good watches, but that isn't the point of what they do.


How do you know this to be true? So far everyone in this thread that owns a Fossil has said how reliable they have been even after years of abuse. Yet you are trying to say how they aren't made to be reliable just a fashion accessory. I don't understand this logic at all. It's like no matter what Fossil owners say about the quality of the watches people just refuse to believe them and without first hand knowledge will say no,no,no they suck.

Yet a brand like Alpha who has numerous complaints about quality control and reliability is thought of as a better brand. Why, because they copy designs of expensive brands like Rolex and Omega?

Look at G Shocks, they are the ultimate fashion watch company. They make watches in every color under the rainbow and some have all those colors on one watch. Yet they are *the* most sturdy, reliable and accurate watch out there.


----------



## dualtime

Ecko said:


> How do you know this to be true? So far everyone in this thread that owns a Fossil has said how reliable they have been even after years of abuse. Yet you are trying to say how they aren't made to be reliable just a fashion accessory. I don't understand this logic at all. It's like no matter what Fossil owners say about the quality of the watches people just refuse to believe them and without first hand knowledge will say no,no,no they suck.
> 
> Yet a brand like Alpha who has numerous complaints about quality control and reliability is thought of as a better brand. Why, because they copy designs of expensive brands like Rolex and Omega?
> 
> Look at G Shocks, they are the ultimate fashion watch company. They make watches in every color under the rainbow and some have all those colors on one watch. Yet they are *the* most sturdy, reliable and accurate watch out there.


 Very well said!!! +1


----------



## craig0ry

Back in 2004 a girlfriend bought me a cheap brown Fossil.

It still works great (I did change the battery). I have gone swimming with it on to the same depths and conditions as my Seiko Monsters and it is no worse for the wear. Granted, this means no deeper than 35 feet which is realistically as deep as my fat ass will EVER be submerged.

However, due to it's price point (I think it was $40) and the general devaluation of the brand (even if it's subtle) that occurs when you browse enough watch forums, I still perceive it as a "disposable" watch. 

BUT when you really think about it, a servicing for my O/B Monster would run me close to $120... About the same price as I paid for my Monster!

So assuming you were to find the styling of the Fossil to be comparable to the Monster... who is to say which is REALLY the disposable watch and which is not? They both are fiscally unfeasible to service or repair rather than purchase a replacement!

Just something to think about. 

And kudos to the OP - the original post did come off a little abrasive, but all your replies made up for it. You have a great attitude and took the criticism in stride. |>


----------



## a6a4

I have one




























very nice design, quality and price (160$ in Moscow) and for me Fossil is not fashion watch how Burberry, Diesel, DKNY, Armani...but Fossil made movements and cases for them))


----------



## scuttle

David S said:


> The clue's in the name.
> 
> Fashion watch manufacturers are primarily concerned with fashion. Not build quality, longevity, or accuracy. They may well produce some good watches, but that isn't the point of what they do.
> 
> Fashion is simply a way of getting people to part with more cash whilst they still have a perfectly serviceable shirt/dress/watch.


If you really believed this, you wouldn't own any watch except either the cheapest Casio. Or at most a solar powered atomic synch G Shock - about $150 and ten times tougher and about a thousand times more accurate than a Rolex (measured over a year).

Are you ***sure*** that you want to stick with "build quality, longevity, or accuracy"?


----------



## J.D.B.

Eric L. said:


> I can certainly think of a more tactful way to express watch preferences than the way the OP posted. I'll let this thread stand but if it descends to arguments or rude statements, I'll have to close it. Be nice, folks.
> 
> In the end, I am pretty happy that people wear watches at all - its better than going naked wristed and pulling out the cell phone to tell the time!


I concur! I've had good experiences with just about ALL watches out there.

Josh


----------



## AndrewSo

scuttle said:


> If you really believed this, you wouldn't own any watch except either the cheapest Casio. Or at most a solar powered atomic synch G Shock - about $150 and ten times tougher and about a thousand times more accurate than a Rolex (measured over a year).
> 
> Are you ***sure*** that you want to stick with "build quality, longevity, or accuracy"?


Ironically, the only two watches I wear right now are my $14 Casio A168W-1 and my G-Shock Riseman (Solar/Atomic). :-d


----------



## v76

celloboy said:


> No one mentioning the ultimate fashion brand in watches, Cartier? Yeah they really suck :roll:


You forget Chopard :-d

Most of the watches in the L.U.C. line are to die for! Ah, to own one of those beauties ...


----------



## MMT

Do you consider Swatch to be a "fashion brand"? If so, your Breguet's, Blancpain's, Glashuette Original's, and Omega's are owned by a "fashion brand". Do you consider Luis Vuitton a "fashion brand"? If so, your Zenith's and TAG Heuer's are owned by a "fashion brand". Your beloved "fashion brand" Cartier belongs to the Richemont Group that also owns Vacheron Constantin, IWC, Jaeger Le Coultre, and Panerai, just to name a few.


----------



## L4rry_B1rd

MMT said:


> Do you consider Swatch to be a "fashion brand"? If so, your Breguet's, Blancpain's, Glashuette Original's, and Omega's are owned by a "fashion brand". Do you consider Luis Vuitton a "fashion brand"? If so, your Zenith's and TAG Heuer's are owned by a "fashion brand". Your beloved "fashion brand" Cartier belongs to the Richemont Group that also owns Vacheron Constantin, IWC, Jaeger Le Coultre, and Panerai, just to name a few.


And the point is?


----------



## MMT

If you say "fashion brands suck", you're indirectly criticizing your major watchmaking companies because they all are owned by your so-called "sucky fashion brands". Capisci?? :-d


L4rry_B1rd said:


> And the point is?


----------



## R_T_H

MMT said:


> Do you consider Swatch to be a "fashion brand"?  If so, your Breguet's, Blancpain's, Glashuette Original's, and Omega's are owned by a "fashion brand". Do you consider Luis Vuitton a "fashion brand"? If so, your Zenith's and TAG Heuer's are owned by a "fashion brand". Your beloved "fashion brand" Cartier belongs to the Richemont Group that also owns Vacheron Constantin, IWC, Jaeger Le Coultre, and Panerai, just to name a few.


You're confusing "Swatch" and the "Swatch Group". Inaccurate & misleading...


----------



## MMT

I disagree, and I"m not confusing anything at all sir / madam. The Swatch Group's success is mainly attributed to its fashion brand called Swatch. Like it or not, Swatch is a fashion watch brand that acquired Breguet, Blaincpain, Omega. Longines, Hamilton, Tissot etc., etc., Had it been the opposite, the Swatch Group would have called itself Breguet, Blancpain, Longines, Hamilton, Tissot, or Omega Group.
Some people just find it too difficult to come to terms with the facts that several fashion brands now own many of the most luxuruious brand names of yesteryear, and most of the luxury brands most probably wouldn't exist anymore without being purchased by these fashion companies.



R_T_H said:


> You're confusing "Swatch" and the "Swatch Group". Inaccurate & misleading...


----------



## R_T_H

MMT said:


> I disagree, and I"m not confusing anything at all sir / madam. The Swatch Group's success is mainly attributed to its fashion brand called Swatch. Like it or not, Swatch is a fashion watch brand that acquired Breguet, Blaincpain, Omega. Longines, Hamilton, Tissot etc., etc., Had it been the opposite, the Swatch Group would have called itself Breguet, Blancpain, Longines, Hamilton, Tissot, or Omega Group.
> Some people just find it too difficult to come to terms with the facts that several fashion brands now own many of the most luxuruious brand names of yesteryear, and most of the luxury brands most probably wouldn't exist anymore without being purchased by these fashion companies.


Firstly, I think it needs to be made clear I don't care who owns whom; it's irrelevant as I am not in the position of owning, purchasing, or having the intention to purchase high-end watches from brands owned by the Swatch Group. I have no vested interest.

Nevertheless, your assertion that Swatch owns Omega etc. is incorrect. If you look at the company history of the Swatch group, you will see that it was a conglomeration that already owned Omega/Tissot etc. prior to the beginning of the assembly of Swatch watches. (SMH, which was formed from SSIH and ASUAG, SSIH already including Tissot and Omega). SMH didn't rename as the Swatch Group until 1998. I would point you to Wikipedia, but I doubt you would see that as a reliable source. There are plenty of other resources out there however e.g. http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/The-Swatch-Group-SA-Company-History.html

The Swatch Group's success may be wholly or majorly attributable to Swatch, but "Swatch" did not acquire the brands that make up "Swatch Group". What is now called the Swatch Group alread owned prestigious brands.


----------



## cipsaz

Good thread, though.

Alot of people aren't aware of high quality watches. Although, the majority of them think that the fashion watches are actually a high quality.


----------



## Tempvs Ex Machina

That is true, somewhat. The other day I saw someone with an iPhone sporting the time with a classic Panerai watch face! Yet, I still believe that the wrist is the natural place where people will tell time, amongst other things. An iPhone wristwatch? How about an iPod Nano wristwatch - checkout TikTok and LunaTik on Kickstarter for that. If history has taught us anything, then we know that the new pocket watch will one day crawl its way up onto its home - the wrist.


----------



## Tempvs Ex Machina

Taken loosely, _any_ watch is referred to as a fashion watch, which one can wear on a nice suit, wear while performing certain activities, etc. But, this tells us nothing about what "fashion watches" are. My point: "fashion watches" are a connotation for watches designed by clothing and accessory companies. Simple. How they go about designing their watches and/or their quality is another story altogether. Consider this scenario: if there are two watches that are exactly the same, save for one with a fashion logo and the other with a name brand watch company, which would you go for? In the end, it is a question of perception (or the lack thereof for others). Consider this, as well. If Panerai started selling shirts, then would you perceive it to be better or worse than the high end luxury shirts of (insert fashion name here). Practically, it _should_ boil down to quality; but, again, the vast majority of people will say it is about perception - the main industry the company is in, as well as the "quality" of the materials used (at least the perception of it) are likely to be the greatest factors involved. These are not my speculations. "IMO" they are facts.


----------



## JPS3

I've never had a problem with the fashion brands. Heck, my very first "real watch" was a fossil blue that I got in 4th grade because a bunch of my friends had fossils and I still have it to this day


----------



## dualtime

hpark21 said:


> Oh grasshopper, I see that you have not begun your journey of being a WIS and still just a WI.
> 
> Soon, as you master, you shall realize that only bad watch are watch that are not worn and someone's trash is someone else's treasure.
> 
> There is no good or bad when it comes to watches. As long as they keep time, brand is not important, just how you FEEL is important. If you like your watch and wear it in good health, then the watch is serving its purpose.
> 
> Go forth and learn the way to accept so that you can put "S" in your (WI)Sdom.


+1!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sopwith21

I don't like fashion brands. They seem shallow and irrelevant. I don't consider them "real" watches. Then again, I really like some Skagens... which to some, is considered a fashion brand. So much for my opinion! :-d

However, a precautionary note may be in order... many of those who condemn the anti-fashion WIS's would be greatly dismayed by someone who wears no watch at all and just checks their cell phone for the time. I submit that one position is no better than the other.


----------



## ry079

I believe you shouldn't judge a watch just by it's brand. Hell, if its made well, you like the design and keeps good time what is there not to like? I've owned an emporio armani automatic manufactured by fossil i believe with a modified sea-gull movement. The quality was great and was -/+ 10 seconds a day which is better than the tissot prs-516 i just bought.


----------



## Ovalteenie

Imagine the uproar if there were similar threads in the relevant forums e.g. - 'why Rolex sucks', 'why Omega sucks' etc. I doubt such threads would be allowed. Why is it okay to bash fashion brands? :-s

There doesn't seem much objective evidence that fashion brand watches are inferior products. Most are robust and reliable timekeepers with attractive designs.


----------



## Rogi

I used to hate fashion brands before I got a Fendi Nautical Diver for my birthday, I absolutley love the watch but the reason for the hate is simple. Some of them are around a grand and up, in terms of a Rolex or a Omega, you could get a used one for about that, or a new one (once basel roles around if you can haggle or your dealer loves you, he'll give you a pretty decent deal on a Omega cause they need to make room for new stock +1 ) 

Other than that, girlfriends/wives usually end up stealing them because the female watches are always made in like 1mm sizes or something un-imaginably small which is prone to breaking, therefore causing the ladies to borrow your precious and never give it back  ending up as "her watch"

I hope that helped


----------



## handles63

I have only recently discovered the whole fashion watch scene as I have been looking for a cheap source of xtra-large watch cases which I put good quality pocket watch movements that I have restored into. Two things strike me about this genre of watches. 

First is that many of these brands use classic watches like the Panerai Luminor as the basis for their design, pimp out the dial and hands and put inexpensive quartz or mechanical movements into them. The they put a highly inflated RRP value on them and sell them on various on-line platforms at 70 to 90% off RRP. How is this not the same as a good quality copy of a Panerai Luminor being sold at 90% of the value of a genuine Panerai? 

The second thing that strikes me about the so-called fashion brands is that the designs and features of many of these brands are becoming more and more outlandish in oder to stand-out from the crowd. Don't get me wrong I am not against standing out from the crowd but when it is at the expense of good design (I am not talking beauty, I am talking proportion, logic in the layout and clarity of information) it is just bling for blings sake. 

So I suppose I have some sympathy for the original post in this thread.


----------



## westcoasttiger

I realize I'm awfully late to this thread but it has been a very interesting read for me. I recently bought a diver and it doesn't fit under my dress sleeve. I thought I'd check here for a nice dress watch idea but found the sub-forum to be something different than what I thought it to be. I was struck by the OP's thought and the resulting uproar. It's funny to me because after finding this website, I became a noob watch snob amongst my friends. Maybe the OP felt he was discussing the negatives of fashion watches amongst his peers and failed to realize he may have struck a nerve in the severity of his criticism. However, I think there's a place for snobbery if it's done with the right amount of tongue in cheek and amongst friends. I do it all the time when the subject is about, say films. When someone is going on and on about what a great film "The Blind Side" was, I'll either smirk or gently suggest (depending upon whether that person is a friend or stranger) that maybe he or she should try a Kurosawa or a Coen Brothers film. Like great films, the better the story, the better the watch, and that's what I love about the watches not found in the big box department stores.

I found this website last year and soon developed all the symptoms of WIS. Whether you know it or not, many of you polite and genteel posters are responsible for this terrible disease after having been exposed to photographs of your respective collections! I rolled my eyes when my engineering partner told me he was attending our sales meetings while wearing a Nike watch! Later, I shook my head when he informed me he had upgraded to a Kenneth Cole watch, and proceeded to bend his ear about the differences between a "fashion" watch and a watch made by a watch company. He has a lot more money than I do, so recently he showed me a new Omega 007, and I gave him my humble approval. Now I read some of the replies to the OP suggesting there is no place for snobbery!!! C'mon now, you're really confusing me. I realize it may be difficult to keep posts from stepping on the figurative toes of other members, but I am all for some snobbery to a degree amongst peers/friends. I realize the definition of "peer" in this group is borne out of love for watches and not necessarily the incomes required for more expensive watches. BUT I will defend the notion that not all watches are created equal. And if there are some who would disagree, well...I would love to arrange some trades straight up!


----------



## twall

I have read this thread, and one thing that grates like fingernails on a chalkboard is, OVER, and OVER, and OVER - almost every other poster mentions "WIS" -- WHAT THE HECK IS "WIS"? LOL

Just driving me fricken CRAZY!!!!!


----------



## HelloNasty1

twall said:


> I have read this thread, and one thing that grates like fingernails on a chalkboard is, OVER, and OVER, and OVER - almost every other poster mentions "WIS" -- WHAT THE HECK IS "WIS"? LOL
> 
> Just driving me fricken CRAZY!!!!!


Watch Idiot Savant


----------



## twall

Thank you! Whew! Now I can sleep tonight........JK. There is so much lingo in the watch world in general, and each forum has its own jargon on top of THAT, so it seems! 

Thanks again.


----------



## HelloNasty1

twall said:


> Thank you! Whew! Now I can sleep tonight........JK. There is so much lingo in the watch world in general, and each forum has its own jargon on top of THAT, so it seems!
> 
> Thanks again.


Your very welcome. I consider myself a WIS, *mainly* because the acronym includes the word "idiot" ;-)


----------



## WnS

I'm not entirely against a well made fashion watch, there are some good looking Gucci's and Emporio Armani's that really compliment a suit. But I do prefer real watch brands as they generally provide finer looking pieces for your money. E.g. Tissot > Fossil, Hamilton > Gucci. 

High end fashion brands like U-boat are a rip off. Jewelery watches like Cartier are puke worthy.


----------



## outatime

hpark21 said:


> Oh grasshopper, I see that you have not begun your journey of being a WIS and still just a WI.
> 
> Soon, as you master, you shall realize that only bad watch are watch that are not worn and someone's trash is someone else's treasure.
> 
> There is no good or bad when it comes to watches. As long as they keep time, brand is not important, just how you FEEL is important. If you like your watch and wear it in good health, then the watch is serving its purpose.
> 
> Go forth and learn the way to accept so that you can put "S" in your (WI)Sdom.


+1 The best...LOL

When I see someone wearing any watch, I always try to complement it. It has never failed to result in a


----------



## bortas

Without the intent to offend anyone, I have to agree that westcoasttiger provides a pretty good argument about the story that comes with the watch. Maybe it's the geek in me, but I appreciate the features of a watch that are designed for a purpose. When these features are implemented with exquisite craftsmanship, then the piece becomes definitely in a class above (PP, ADP, S&L).

To me, I get the impression that fashion watches are designed by artsy types that have no appreciation for the functionality of the features of the watch (bezel, chrono sub-dials, gmt hand). Basically, a fashion watch to me is just another piece of jewelry, its existence based solely on looks. The cheap innards make it hard for me to classify it as a timepiece.

When you combine this with the fact that fashion is basically an ethereal fad of the moment, why would I waste a single penny on a watch that has no soul? Life is short enough, and since I like to think of myself as qualifying as a WIS, my watches have to be mechanical, functional, aesthetically pleasing and have some sort of story attached to it. I like to think that I will be able to pass along my watches to my heirs for at least a few generations, adding to the story of the watches.

I know that almost all my co-workers have watches that are either fashion watches or digital quartz. Even a consultant I worked with who wore a Rolex Date Just knew nothing of the watch that his wife bought him as a present. Some co-workers that are actually interested in my watches and their stories just shake their heads and say that they already have enough hobbies to sink their money into.

I believe that there are classes in the watch world, and a little snobbery without intent of malice shouldn’t be discouraged. For myself, when a co-worker asks me to change a battery or re-size their Roots bracelet, I just need to whisper to myself “Forgive them father for they do not understand what they’re doing…” and that's enough to stop me from starting to lecturing about watches. I'd rather have friends with any type of watch than no friends at all! ;-)

Regards,

Jerome


----------



## giewalker

I never had a problem on my watch including my brother's watch. We have gucci watches for me and my brother. I love that gucci watches when my brother wear it with his *black suits* its so fashionable.


----------



## KevL

bortas said:


> Without the intent to offend anyone, I have to agree that westcoasttiger provides a pretty good argument about the story that comes with the watch. Maybe it's the geek in me, but I appreciate the features of a watch that are designed for a purpose. When these features are implemented with exquisite craftsmanship, then the piece becomes definitely in a class above (PP, ADP, S&L).
> 
> To me, I get the impression that fashion watches are designed by artsy types that have no appreciation for the functionality of the features of the watch (bezel, chrono sub-dials, gmt hand). Basically, a fashion watch to me is just another piece of jewelry, its existence based solely on looks. The cheap innards make it hard for me to classify it as a timepiece.
> 
> When you combine this with the fact that fashion is basically an ethereal fad of the moment, why would I waste a single penny on a watch that has no soul? Life is short enough, and since I like to think of myself as qualifying as a WIS, my watches have to be mechanical, functional, aesthetically pleasing and have some sort of story attached to it. I like to think that I will be able to pass along my watches to my heirs for at least a few generations, adding to the story of the watches.
> 
> I know that almost all my co-workers have watches that are either fashion watches or digital quartz. Even a consultant I worked with who wore a Rolex Date Just knew nothing of the watch that his wife bought him as a present. Some co-workers that are actually interested in my watches and their stories just shake their heads and say that they already have enough hobbies to sink their money into.
> 
> I believe that there are classes in the watch world, and a little snobbery without intent of malice shouldn't be discouraged. For myself, when a co-worker asks me to change a battery or re-size their Roots bracelet, I just need to whisper to myself "Forgive them father for they do not understand what they're doing&#8230;" and that's enough to stop me from starting to lecturing about watches. I'd rather have friends with any type of watch than no friends at all! ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerome


+1, well said.


----------



## lovtime

I understand the comments about fashion watches..... I started my fascination with watches, with Kenneth Cole and Fossil. I didn't have the know-how or the means to purchase a good watch, but with time I evolved.... Now my question is where do you draw the line? As I learn more I get more confused. A lot of fashion Watches use great ETA Swiss made Movements. I have seen a lot of negative comments towards brands like Gucci, when in fact they have some great deals on automatic Swiss made Watches with Valjoux 7750, ETA 2892 21 jewels GMT, ETC. This is where I get confused, I keep reading criticism towards Raymond Weil, Victorinox, Hamilton and even Invicta, which I noticed to be the most affordable way to acquire a good quality Watch (and also look great). Do you need to have in house Movements to be a serious brand? Really? But the majority of high end brand base the majority of their movements out of ETA (Omega, Panerai, Tag Heuer, IWC, ETC) So can somebody make some sense out of this?


----------



## bortas

Hello Lovtime,

Unfortunately, the fashion segment of the watch industry tends to be where the bastard children of the family congregate. This being the case, only one level of snobbery is completely unsuitable. For starters, there’s the quartz vs. mechanical snobs, the watchmaker vs. manufacture (watch companies that make their own in-house movements) snobs, the anything-Chinese-made-is-junk snobs, then there’s the boutique and limited edition snobs, the rich snobs and the list goes on.

My problem with fashion watches is that they have no soul. Some fashion designer of some sort, clothes, perfume, whatever, decided that they want their name on even more junk to make even more money from the fashion-driven sheeple. They pick a style that will sell based solely on appearance and name recognition. The only reason they started selling mechanical is probably because it was the cheapest way to get the sweeping second hand. There’s no thought given to the legibility of the dial, the functions of the hands and sub-dials, to the ease of bracelet swap, etc. In my mind, a fashion watch is just a piece of jewelry, not a time measuring instrument.

As for the famous ETA movements, that's a story onto its own. A while back the Swatch group started selling very reliable movements in large quantities. The 282x and 289x are very reliable work horses. The difference between a $200 ETA-based watch and the Omegas and IWCs is that those watch makers finish up, polish and embellish the movement, tuning it to their specification. Think of it like a nice slab of steak; grilled on a charcoal bbq is a thousand times better than fried in the pan. Same steak though!

You mentioned Invicta. That’s a special case for a watch company. Invicta makes a very decent product. I own the 8926c and the 4469. No problem at all with either watches and amazing details liked signed clasps and crowns, oyster solid link bracelets, etc. for the price, although on the 8926c, you can see that they use cheaper components, but almost everything is there for a dive watch. The 4469 looks and feels like an expensive watch. Considering you can get them under $300 new, it’s a pretty decent purchase. The main reason people get on Invicta's case is that they produce something like over 4000 different models of watches. They really mass produce and sometimes there's QC issues. I was lucky, no problems with both of my Invictas.

I find that if you’re not into the watch snobbery scene, the Seiko crowd is pretty down to earth. Personally, I’m into dive watches and I really started with the SKX007. Then I got the Invictas, then more Seikos and lately, I’ve been purchasing from the boutique market. 

It’s really what you prefer, especially since everyone else I know in real life knows didly squat about watches. Just get what appeals to you after you find out enough about it to make you want to have it, hopefully more than just the looks. It helps if you use phrases like: “I got it because the C3 lume is a lot brighter than the C1 lume on my other watches…” ;-)

Regards,

Jerome


----------



## lovtime

What's your opinion Dubois Depraz Chrono Module



bortas said:


> Hello Lovtime,
> 
> Unfortunately, the fashion segment of the watch industry tends to be where the bastard children of the family congregate. This being the case, only one level of snobbery is completely unsuitable. For starters, there's the quartz vs. mechanical snobs, the watchmaker vs. manufacture (watch companies that make their own in-house movements) snobs, the anything-Chinese-made-is-junk snobs, then there's the boutique and limited edition snobs, the rich snobs and the list goes on.
> 
> My problem with fashion watches is that they have no soul. Some fashion designer of some sort, clothes, perfume, whatever, decided that they want their name on even more junk to make even more money from the fashion-driven sheeple. They pick a style that will sell based solely on appearance and name recognition. The only reason they started selling mechanical is probably because it was the cheapest way to get the sweeping second hand. There's no thought given to the legibility of the dial, the functions of the hands and sub-dials, to the ease of bracelet swap, etc. In my mind, a fashion watch is just a piece of jewelry, not a time measuring instrument.
> 
> As for the famous ETA movements, that's a story onto its own. A while back the Swatch group started selling very reliable movements in large quantities. The 282x and 289x are very reliable work horses. The difference between a $200 ETA-based watch and the Omegas and IWCs is that those watch makers finish up, polish and embellish the movement, tuning it to their specification. Think of it like a nice slab of steak; grilled on a charcoal bbq is a thousand times better than fried in the pan. Same steak though!
> 
> You mentioned Invicta. That's a special case for a watch company. Invicta makes a very decent product. I own the 8926c and the 4469. No problem at all with either watches and amazing details liked signed clasps and crowns, oyster solid link bracelets, etc. for the price, although on the 8926c, you can see that they use cheaper components, but almost everything is there for a dive watch. The 4469 looks and feels like an expensive watch. Considering you can get them under $300 new, it's a pretty decent purchase. The main reason people get on Invicta's case is that they produce something like over 4000 different models of watches. They really mass produce and sometimes there's QC issues. I was lucky, no problems with both of my Invictas.
> 
> I find that if you're not into the watch snobbery scene, the Seiko crowd is pretty down to earth. Personally, I'm into dive watches and I really started with the SKX007. Then I got the Invictas, then more Seikos and lately, I've been purchasing from the boutique market.
> 
> It's really what you prefer, especially since everyone else I know in real life knows didly squat about watches. Just get what appeals to you after you find out enough about it to make you want to have it, hopefully more than just the looks. It helps if you use phrases like: "I got it because the C3 lume is a lot brighter than the C1 lume on my other watches&#8230;" ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerome


----------



## bortas

Although I used to love all the hands and little sub-dials on chronographs back when I was young, these days my eyes aren't what they used to be and it's hard for me to read those sub-dials without reading glasses.

From what I've read, Dubois Depraz is a pretty specialized chrono module required a very competent watchmaker to service and repair. Considering the company has been around for 110 years and their client list, I would think that they make fairly decent chronograph module.

That's about all I can answer to your question. I hope this helped.

Sincerely,

Jerome


----------



## CLEANS-HIGH

I like some of the fashion brands, I havew 2 Kenneth Cole watches that are well made with thick leather straps, sapphire crystals and Swiss movements, very nice, a Tommy Hilfiger and 1 Guess and 1 Guess Colection watch and 2 Nautica, all are well made and I have no complaints


----------



## baronrojo

bortas said:


> Hello Lovtime,
> 
> Unfortunately, the fashion segment of the watch industry tends to be where the bastard children of the family congregate. This being the case, only one level of snobbery is completely unsuitable. For starters, there's the quartz vs. mechanical snobs, the watchmaker vs. manufacture (watch companies that make their own in-house movements) snobs, the anything-Chinese-made-is-junk snobs, then there's the boutique and limited edition snobs, the rich snobs and the list goes on.
> 
> My problem with fashion watches is that they have no soul. Some fashion designer of some sort, clothes, perfume, whatever, decided that they want their name on even more junk to make even more money from the fashion-driven sheeple. They pick a style that will sell based solely on appearance and name recognition. The only reason they started selling mechanical is probably because it was the cheapest way to get the sweeping second hand. There's no thought given to the legibility of the dial, the functions of the hands and sub-dials, to the ease of bracelet swap, etc. In my mind, a fashion watch is just a piece of jewelry, not a time measuring instrument.
> 
> As for the famous ETA movements, that's a story onto its own. A while back the Swatch group started selling very reliable movements in large quantities. The 282x and 289x are very reliable work horses. The difference between a $200 ETA-based watch and the Omegas and IWCs is that those watch makers finish up, polish and embellish the movement, tuning it to their specification. Think of it like a nice slab of steak; grilled on a charcoal bbq is a thousand times better than fried in the pan. Same steak though!
> 
> You mentioned Invicta. That's a special case for a watch company. Invicta makes a very decent product. I own the 8926c and the 4469. No problem at all with either watches and amazing details liked signed clasps and crowns, oyster solid link bracelets, etc. for the price, although on the 8926c, you can see that they use cheaper components, but almost everything is there for a dive watch. The 4469 looks and feels like an expensive watch. Considering you can get them under $300 new, it's a pretty decent purchase. The main reason people get on Invicta's case is that they produce something like over 4000 different models of watches. They really mass produce and sometimes there's QC issues. I was lucky, no problems with both of my Invictas.
> 
> I find that if you're not into the watch snobbery scene, the Seiko crowd is pretty down to earth. Personally, I'm into dive watches and I really started with the SKX007. Then I got the Invictas, then more Seikos and lately, I've been purchasing from the boutique market.
> 
> It's really what you prefer, especially since everyone else I know in real life knows didly squat about watches. Just get what appeals to you after you find out enough about it to make you want to have it, hopefully more than just the looks. It helps if you use phrases like: "I got it because the C3 lume is a lot brighter than the C1 lume on my other watches&#8230;" ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerome


Because as well all know Invicta is a watch company with so much soul. Invicta is guilty of the same faults that you accuse fashion watches of.

_"They pick a style that will sell based solely on appearance and name recognition. The only reason they started selling mechanical is probably because it was the cheapest way to get the sweeping second hand. There's no thought given to the legibility of the dial, the functions of the hands and sub-dials, to the ease of bracelet swap, etc."_

Sounds like Invicta's order of operations...pick a style from a well-known watch brand (with prior name recognition)...stick a low-quality mechanical movement (to get the sweeping hand)...not think about the dial or functions of the sub-dials (because this has been thought of already by the company from which they copied the design).

Very few companies can now claim to have original designs (imitation is the ultimate form of flattery I guess)...however...many fashion watches do have original designs in their collections.


----------



## baronrojo

CLEANS-HIGH said:


> I like some of the fashion brands, I havew 2 Kenneth Cole watches that are well made with thick leather straps, sapphire crystals and Swiss movements, very nice, a Tommy Hilfiger and 1 Guess and 1 Guess Colection watch and 2 Nautica, all are well made and I have no complaints


Exactly...wear what you like and what makes you happy. Watches are nice...period!! I've said it before and I'll say it again..."you should make the watch...the watch shouldn't make you."

At the end of the day every watch ends up being a fashion accessory...other than showing up for work on time and knowing when to go home...most people have little to no need to know what time it is...so it's not imperative that we wear watches. We do so because we like them...they look nice on our wrists...we match them with our outfits...like to have a variety...etc...sounds like a fashion accessory to me.

This "fashion brand" bashing is very typical of people who recently discovered "expensive watches" and now their tastes are now suddenly "refined". Funnier still is when they don't even own any of those "expensive watches"...but yet still feel the need to look down on fashion watches.


----------



## bortas

I partially agree with you about the Invicta watches, but then again my exposure to them is quite limited. A while back when I was in the market for a submariner homage, I purchased a 4469 from Amazon. When I received it, I was actually surprised at how luxurious the watch felt and looked. My previous watch was a Seiko SKX007, a very good tool watch, but not a luxury piece. 

I liked the quality feel of the 4469 so much that I decided to get a 8926c as a beater for yard work, house renos, working on the cars, etc. Of course, the 8926c being a third of the price of the 4469 feels and looks cheaper, but it's a diver (my kind of watch( and if I destroy it while working around the house, I won't care.

For me, at least Invicta is primarily a watch company, and even though they behave the same way the fashion industry does, depending on the model and on your luck, chances are you can get a really good watch from them that was designed as an instrument rather than a piece of jewelry. I just keep my 4469 around when I want a nice diver that goes well with a suit. The rest of my collection is a bit too toolish to pull it off.

Anyway, lately I keep on going back to my Prometheus Jellyfish. An excellent tool watch with tritium vials for illumination. Not tux material, but a wonderful hunk of stainless steel anyway! 


Regards,

Jerome


----------



## hans caravan

lovtime said:


> I understand the comments about fashion watches..... I started my fascination with watches, with Kenneth Cole and Fossil. I didn't have the know-how or the means to purchase a good watch, but with time I evolved.... Now my question is where do you draw the line? As I learn more I get more confused. A lot of fashion Watches use great ETA Swiss made Movements. I have seen a lot of negative comments towards brands like Gucci, when in fact they have some great deals on automatic Swiss made Watches with Valjoux 7750, ETA 2892 21 jewels GMT, ETC. This is where I get confused, *I keep reading criticism towards* Raymond Weil, Victorinox, *Hamilton* and even Invicta, which I noticed to be the most affordable way to acquire a good quality Watch (and also look great). Do you need to have in house Movements to be a serious brand? Really? But the majority of high end brand base the majority of their movements out of ETA (Omega, Panerai, Tag Heuer, IWC, ETC) So can somebody make some sense out of this?


Hamilton? :-s That's news to me. They have an excellent reputation here on WUS.


----------



## czar

zzsrs;2399482rd said:


> While my current interests in srsstcwatches typically lead eme in other directions as, I have to give credit to both swatchdrexvchxddsszyeg dand fossil for fueling my early interest in watches. The most amazing thing happened ages tago when I started walking up zeto the fossil or eeswatchewsx counter and realizingxzx, "hey! I can actually afford two or three of these!" It was quite the revelation.;-)


Agreed. I have a wide range of watches, like Diesels that I collected for awhile. I liked the look of them and then moved onto appreciating the automatic movements of higher end watches.


----------



## por44

People need to be careful with this stereotype - one sincere look at a Swiss made _Gucci Pantheon Diver_ (YA115211 series) will make the naysayer feel very foolish


----------



## frtorres87

Works very slow today so i actually read every post of this thread today. I have to say most post are amusing. Im a firm believer in "I purchase what I like". I definitely dont need the approval from memebrs of a watch forum on the purchase of any watch. That said I`ve been having fun with my "fashion watches". I do intend to purchase higher end watches, but i plan on getting engaged soon so dropping a few thousand dollars on a watch is out of the question. All my watches, which include "fashion wathes" have been durable and have all kept great time. Ive had a guess for about 5 years thats been through hell and back but keeps ticking! I personally don`t like Seiko, Citizen, or Orient. I think they have ugly designs. But that is my (bold?) opinion. I know there quality watches, I just dont like the designs. I guess thats why I enjoy my "fashion watches", because they have great designs, some original and some not. At the end of the day this thread will end up with the same conclusion, purchase what you like.


----------



## Daniel Z

I never really got the "hate" that some people have towards 'fashion watches'. I've mentioned it before in another thread I belive... I think a lot of people on this forum generalize quite a bit when it comes to this, from what I've noticed they (most people here) think of fashion watches as +44mm 'bling'/fake watches from designer brands. 
I my self disslike such watches, but I really don't think that's how most 'fashion' watches are. Hugo Boss, Emporio Armani, GANT, Hilfiger, etc all make rather classic watches that spans 38-42mm (some exceptions). 

Aside from that I personally think of a quartz as ... just quartz. I don't really see how a seiko is better than a Hugo Boss watch for example. But I'm aware that some quartz movements are 'better', but really...? Quartz watches are acurate to a minute or two per year, does a few seconds per month or year really matter that much?

I've also heard quite a few people say that aside from fashion watche's... horrible size and aesthetics (Because they're all huge and blingy^^) they're also insanely overpriced. I find it rather amusing that people who considers, for example Omega to be a 'bang for the buck', think of 'fashion' watches as overpriced! I mean, the ETA movement in an omega is worth... $200-300 (not counting in 8500)? Probably even less than that (don't quote me on that though). I mean they even sell SMP quartz for €1 710, and that's not even HEQ. So I don't think the 'overpriced' argument is valid when it comes from people who see the mid-high end brands as 'bang for the buck'.
(omega was just a reference, I actually love omega so don't get me wrong)


So no, there isn't anything inherently wrong with owning a 'fashion' watch (unless it's huge and blingy IMO(goes for all watches)), if you like it and if the design suits you, then buy it and enjoy it!


----------



## saturnine

drickster said:


> Well, chiming in as a newbie... This thread has effectively served it's purpose.
> 
> I was starting to feel that I should only enjoy "high end" watches and my low enders weren't worth much in the scheme of things sort of like the OP said. But after reading through this thread I realize my mistake.
> 
> I don't buy a lot of watches, just the ones that "sing" to me. it doesn't matter the price, it's the enjoyment that counts.
> 
> So thanks guys for steering a newbie on the right path!! :thanks


As a fellow neophyte I concur. It is pleasant to know I need not hide my Timex Weekender from the eyes of WIS whilst I decide between an automatic or solar as my 1st battery-free device (yes, I have learned that the eco-drive still contains a battery).

I do wish I could find my Timex Triathlon, that was a perfect workout watch. And I will always remember my 1st Fossil; beautiful shade of blue dial, date & domed crystal, brown leather band. I admit I wanted it b/c Fossil was the thing at the time amongst my peers, nonetheless I really liked it. I wonder what became of it... I ran through a few Timex Triathlon style watches prior to that & always loved all the functions. Continuing my reverse trip through time, I coveted friends' calculator watches in an age before that. To think I have spent the last 5-7 years of my existence lost, wandering the globe, wantonly exhibiting my naked wrist to the world - largely due to misguided thoughts given my accursed 21st century pocket watch.

It really is amusing, no matter the topic, you may find the same debates on almost any forum where people discuss something they are passionate about.

-Harry Potter or other popular fiction is not a gateway to literature & must be looked down upon
-Flavored cigars are trash & cannot be appreciated like an Arturo Fuente
-Hyundai is Korean junk & not to be driven
-Cartridge razors are the root of all evil (this be true) & only a safety razor/straight edge can provide a proper shaving experience
et al.


----------



## var

frtorres87 said:


> Works very slow today so i actually read every post of this thread today. I have to say most post are amusing. Im a firm believer in "I purchase what I like". I definitely dont need the approval from memebrs of a watch forum on the purchase of any watch. That said I`ve been having fun with my "fashion watches". I do intend to purchase higher end watches, but i plan on getting engaged soon so dropping a few thousand dollars on a watch is out of the question. All my watches, which include "fashion wathes" have been durable and have all kept great time. Ive had a guess for about 5 years thats been through hell and back but keeps ticking! I personally don`t like Seiko, Citizen, or Orient. I think they have ugly designs. But that is my (bold?) opinion. I know there quality watches, I just dont like the designs. I guess thats why I enjoy my "fashion watches", because they have great designs, some original and some not. At the end of the day this thread will end up with the same conclusion, purchase what you like.


Read every post in this thread huh? Wow. I was at page 8 when I decided to skip to 10. Haha
I guess that later, I will go back to reading those 2 pages I skipped.

Well, I can certainly relate with your thoughts on Seiko, Citizen and Orient having ugly designs. But although I find a lot of the watches from these brands boring to look at, I still do find a number of watches from these brands that are certainly eye catchers. And I would pick a Citizen or Orient design anytime over a Rolex which, to me, seems like a senior's watch.

Anyways, I love my only watch right now which is a Citizen.


----------



## chrisced50

watch_art said:


> so i was thinking the other day as i was changing batteries in some watches from different teachers at school, why it is that fashion brands suck.
> so far, all of the teachers either own fossil or kenneth cole.
> fossil: blah. hate em. but everybody seems to think they're this huge and hugely important watch brand. they can't seem to get past them. i bet if you asked them to name 10 high end brands, they could only come up with rolex and MAYBE omega.
> 
> so why is it that we here wis folk hate fashion brands so much?
> 
> i'd like this thread to be a place where we can point newbs to so they can understand a little more easily why fossil, gucci, and dolce and gabbana aren't taken seriously here and in the WUS world.


Because they are Fashion Watches promoted to the naïve younger generation that lives to be on social media they will pay high prices just to be popular. Quality means nothing to them. Remember the rock pet ?


----------

