# Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?



## Ric Capucho

Hi All,

The inevitable follow up to the Glashütte Original poll.

Forgive me this indulgence, but after reading dozens of pages of the original High End thread it seemed that GO, JLC (and of course Rolex) appeared time and again as contentious.

Post whatever comments you feel the need to write, but please do vote on the poll.

Ric


----------



## MattHofstadt

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

I voted high-end for the Glashutte Original poll and could, at some level, understand how a few people may think GO is, perhaps, just short of high-end. But JLC... seriously!?!? This isn't even a question. There is no debate over whether or not JLC is high-end, it just is.


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

id say only for their exquisite piecces such as the duometre and tourbillons. They make amazing movements that one cannot fault in any way. My only beef with them is they are too industrialized in terms of finishing. Consider the new Master Ultra Thin Perpetual that has been brought up more than once in this forum. An excellent piece and a bargain for the price. Turn it around and the finishing is pretty much the same you see in their least expensive pieces.

On the other hand...the stuff that comes out of their Haute Horlogerie department on the 3rd floor of the manufactory...to die for

P.S. I wouldnt exactly say its Mid end either...i think it lies just on the line and the reason has to do with their vast collection size.


----------



## shnjb

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

While they have a lot of industrialized finishing on their watches if GO is high end then so are jlc.
Also they should get some major kudos for pushing horology on the high end side of the business.


----------



## Trel

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

I said 'no'.

The bulk of JLC's line is not high end, it's mid-tier. Since they make their own movements, they will also make multi-axis repeater tourbillon perpetual calendars, to show that they can.

Let me put it this way: if Kia were to make a Korean equivalent of the Bugatti Veyron (including all of the Veyron's performance and luxury) and price it at a million dollars, is Kia now a high-end car company?


----------



## heuerolexomega

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Without JLC , the high end watch industry will suffer


----------



## sheon

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Yes, JLC is not called La Grande Maison for nothing. Without the JLC calibre 920, the royal oak, nautilus and overseas would not be the watches we love so dearly.


----------



## Hatman14

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

High end isn't just about price..... 
Quality, history, class and horological importance all make JLC high end, there's a reason high end manufacturers use/used their movements!


----------



## Larry Darrell

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

As noted on the GO poll, whether a watch brand is high end is a two part question. The first part is what your definition of "high end" is, and the second part is does the watch brand fit your definition of "high end." You can't really provide any object support for your answer to the first part - everybody is free to define "high end" however they want. You can provide objective support for your answer to the second part.

Whether JLC is high end almost exclusively depends on your answer to the first part, as there is no real debate about JLC's history, tradition, movements, complications, casings, finishing, average price point, number of pieces produced and whatever else one may choose to include in their definition of "high end." So, this question really comes down to a subjective debate about your definition of "high end" and doesn't have much, if anything, to do with your opinion of JLC.

For me history, tradition, movements, and complications are the heart of haute horlogerie. Finishing is what separates AP, PP, VC, and ALS from the rest of haute horologerie. While it shows incredible artistic beauty, I feel it is moving away from watchmaking per se and is really more the icing on the cake than a determining factor of haute horlogerie; however, I can see how somebody would disagree. If you feel high level finishing is a requirement of haute horology, then JLC probably doesn't make it for you.

I could care less about average price point and number of pieces produced, as those have little to nothing to do with watchmaking and really are starting to pander to snob appeal. I do find this requirement hard to defend. As mentioned on the GO poll, if price and rarity are critical to your definition of haute horlogerie then you could create a definition that excludes AP, PP, VC, and ALS. Again, there is nothing I can say about this being objectively false, but it does seem more appropriate to talk about levels of haute horlogerie at this point rather than restricting your definition. But, whatever floats your boat. We are arguing about a lable not the watch so it's a futile exercise (however entertaining it may be).


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Larry Darrell said:


> As noted on the GO poll, whether a watch brand is high end is a two part question. The first part is what your definition of "high end" is, and the second part is does the watch brand fit your definition of "high end." You can't really provide any object support for your answer to the first part - everybody is free to define "high end" however they want. You can provide objective support for your answer to the second part.
> 
> Whether JLC is high end almost exclusively depends on your answer to the first part, as there is no real debate about JLC's history, tradition, movements, complications, casings, finishing, average price point, number of pieces produced and whatever else one may choose to include in their definition of "high end." So, this question really comes down to a subjective debate about your definition of "high end" and doesn't have much, if anything, to do with your opinion of JLC.
> 
> For me history, tradition, movements, and complications are the heart of haute horlogerie. Finishing is what separates AP, PP, VC, and ALS from the rest of haute horologerie. While it shows incredible artistic beauty, I feel it is moving away from watchmaking per se and is really more the icing on the cake than a determining factor of haute horlogerie; however, I can see how somebody would disagree. If you feel high level finishing is a requirement of haute horology, then JLC probably doesn't make it for you.
> 
> I could care less about average price point and number of pieces produced, as those have little to nothing to do with watchmaking and really are starting to pander to snob appeal. I do find this requirement hard to defend. As mentioned on the GO poll, if price and rarity are critical to your definition of haute horlogerie then you could create a definition that excludes AP, PP, VC, and ALS. Again, there is nothing I can say about this being objectively false, but it does seem more appropriate to talk about levels of haute horlogerie at this point rather than restricting your definition. But, whatever floats your boat. We are arguing about a lable not the watch so it's a futile exercise (however entertaining it may be).


Yes. That's about what I'd have said, but with fewer words. <wink> LOL.

EDIT:
I think what I said above may be misinterpreted. Larry used fewer words than I would have is what I was thinking.


----------



## elyk nordneg

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

JLC is widely accepted as being high-end. They've made movements for PP, AP, VC (the holy trinity) for god sake.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PremierCurrency

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Hmmm... This one got me thinking. If I say "yes" to this poll, it would put them on par with Patek, Lange, and Vacheron, which I don't feel is right. By saying no, it would wrongly exclude them from a term I feel they rightly deserve. My solution:

Yes, Jaeger is "High End" but not in the same league as some others also labeled as high end. So:
While Jaeger is "High End", Patek, Lange, Breguet, and Vacheron are "Ultra High End".


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



elyk nordneg said:


> JLC is widely accepted as being high-end. They've made movements for PP, AP, VC (the holy trinity) for god sake.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It was once widely accepted that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Interestingly enough, the Holy Trinity was a factor then too.


----------



## ShaggyDog

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Is JLC a high end watch? Look, to 99.9% of the population a Rolex is high end. So yes, JLC is undoubtedly a high end watch.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



PremierCurrency said:


> Hmmm... This one got me thinking. If I say "yes" to this poll, it would put them on par with Patek, Lange, and Vacheron, which I don't feel is right. By saying no, it would wrongly exclude them from a term I feel they rightly deserve. My solution:
> 
> Yes, Jaeger is "High End" but not in the same league as some others also labeled as high end. So:
> While Jaeger is "High End", Patek, Lange, Breguet, and Vacheron are "Ultra High End".


Carry that approach to its ultimate end and one could end up with umpteen of "high ends." Invicta and Parnis could be ultra-ultra-ultra-low high end" watches.

Alternately, we could fully stratify the market wherein each strata contains one watch. Of course, that would mean we just discuss specific watches and the merits thereof (or lack thereof) instead of whether those watches are made by a brand that is "high end" or "low high end," or "ultra high end" or whatever.

All the best.

Genius, throughout history, has been found difficult to classify because it varies in amount: It's rare to find a genius in the context of the noun, but most people, if not all, have a bit of genius in them in the context of the adjective.
- Criss Jami


----------



## Ric Capucho

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



tony20009 said:


> It was once widely accepted that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Interestingly enough, the Holy Trinity was a factor then too.


And it's now commonly accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but that ain't quite right either. The Earth, Sun and every other body in our Solar System revolves around the common centre of gravity of the entire Solar System, which is a hop, skip and jump *outside* of the radius of the Sun.

Informative, enlightening, and true. What other thread on WUS gives us so much?

Ric


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Ric Capucho said:


> And it's now commonly accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but that ain't quite right either. The Earth, Sun and every other body in our Solar System revolves around the common centre of gravity of the entire Solar System, which is a hop, skip and jump *outside* of the radius of the Sun.
> 
> Informative, enlightening, and true. What other thread on WUS gives us so much?
> 
> Ric


Yes, I found that out a few years ago playing Trivial Pursuit - On The Flly Edition. Fortunately it wasn't my question to answer for I'd have got it wrong had it been. <grins> It inspired me and the rest of my incredulous cohorts to look into the topic more as it was "news to us."

We found this website: Solar System Center of Mass: case study. I like that the author attempts to draw a correlation between the movement of the center of mass (CoM) and the stock market. He also shows a coincidence between two political events and the CoM. I don't think he's going so far as to claim causality, but observationally, the facts are undeniable. Of course the game fell by the wayside and we popped the cork on another wine bottle and the conversation turned to whether there was also a correlation with the CoM and wines. Of course, nobody knew, so we shifted to stocks, economics, religion and politics. LOL.

FWIW, the TP - OTF Edition is just TP where the players make up their own questions. My friends are all pretty well versed in a lot of subjects and I'm the only one among us who doesn't have a PhD. So we make up our own questions. We assign the question categories to different people. So I might have to make up history and math ones and another person might have history and science and so on. That way you don't have to ask yourself a question for which you don't know the answer. LOL.

All the best.

I want to keep a human mouth on my coffee table. It'll be a great conversation starter.
- Jarod Kintz, _I Want _


----------



## Ric Capucho

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Well, the vote seems to have gone in a similar direction as to Glashütte Original. So far, about 80% of voters consider Jaeger leCoultre to be unequivocably high-end.

Hmm... what next, I wonder? GP? Or do we go straight for Rolex for a laugh? Nah, better give this poll a few more days in case the pendulum swings.

Ric


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Ric Capucho said:


> Well, the vote seems to have gone in a similar direction as to Glashütte Original. So far, about 80% of voters consider Jaeger leCoultre to be unequivocably high-end.
> 
> Hmm... what next, I wonder? GP? Or do we go straight for Rolex for a laugh? Nah, better give this poll a few more days in case the pendulum swings.
> 
> Ric


Hold your horse, i got something in the works for a good poll coming soon


----------



## ilitig8

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



tony20009 said:


> Yes. That's about what I'd have said, but with fewer words. <wink> LOL.


Sarcasm much? I would give you a hard time about your extravagant use of words, but we know where that goes... 

To the OP: I consider JLC as a manufacturer high-end, however, I don't consider all of their watches high-end, but, I do not consider only the grand complications high-end.


----------



## Dancing Fire

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

JLC is the best value (bang for the buck) in high end watches.


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Dancing Fire said:


> JLC is the best value (bang for the buck) in high end watches.


Yes ill agree to that...
Along with GO which in my opinion is a notch above...people will disagree but i must say the finishing is up to par with the Holy Trinity as well


----------



## GlenRoiland

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Dancing Fire said:


> JLC is the best value (bang for the buck) in high end watches.


Which is why I voted "yes".


----------



## Peppe1019

Yes..


----------



## Wangensten

Of course JLC is a high end brand. 
A collection is not complete without a JLC


----------



## AbuKalb93

Wangensten said:


> Of course JLC is a high end brand.
> A collection is not complete without a JLC


Either a collection will never be complete even with a JLC
Or
A collection can be complete without a JLC


----------



## Ric Capucho

AbuKalb93 said:


> Either a collection will never be complete even with a JLC
> Or
> A collection can be complete without a JLC


A tautological statement that would make Wittgenstein proud. Very well done.

Ric


----------



## Ric Capucho

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

It's a wrap; JLC is high-end, 'cos 80% of those who voted say it is.

Ric


----------



## seanwontreturn

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Ric Capucho said:


> It's a wrap; JLC is high-end, 'cos 80% of those who voted say it is.
> 
> Ric


Then GO is seemingly a higher end brand in term of WIS supporting ratio.


----------



## Ric Capucho

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



seanwontreturn said:


> Then GO is seemingly a higher end brand in term of WIS supporting ratio.


Yes vote for JLC is a smudge under 82%, and for GO it's a bit under 80%, so I come to a different conclusion: within statistical error they're perceived to be about the same.

Ric


----------



## shnjb

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Ric Capucho said:


> Yes vote for JLC is a smudge under 82%, and for GO it's a bit under 80%, so I come to a different conclusion: within statistical error they're perceived to be about the same.
> 
> Ric


If u asked the same people if AP or Vc are high end they might not get higher than 90% either.
80% sounds like a pretty strong consensus to me.


----------



## Ric Capucho

Indeed, and if anyone disagrees any further I'll start that Rolex poll as punishment.

Ric


----------



## AbuKalb93

Ric Capucho said:


> Indeed, and if anyone disagrees any further I'll start that Rolex poll as punishment.
> 
> Ric


----------



## ilikebigbutts

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



seanwontreturn said:


> Then GO is seemingly a higher end brand in term of WIS supporting ratio.


Goes es back to brand recognition and inverse snobbery that we've touched on repeatedly recently across various threads (IMHO of course). JLC is much more widely known, GO is a bit of an 'it' brand at the moment amongst WIS, just like ALS.


----------



## GETS

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

If anyone cares what I think I voted yes. Just look up all their in house work and the matter speaks for itself (regardless if you like in house or not).


----------



## Locomotivebreath

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Trel said:


> I said 'no'.
> 
> The bulk of JLC's line is not high end, it's mid-tier. Since they make their own movements, they will also make multi-axis repeater tourbillon perpetual calendars, to show that they can.
> 
> Let me put it this way: if Kia were to make a Korean equivalent of the Bugatti Veyron (including all of the Veyron's performance and luxury) and price it at a million dollars, is Kia now a high-end car company?


Compares JLC to KIA riding the weirdest logic-train this side of a mental institution. Owns a Hublot. Nuff said.


----------



## Shanghaied

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

In my mind JLC is high-end, albeit with a rather 'modest' pricing. Perhaps it is their strategy? I'd put it up there somewhere just after the top 4: PP, AP, VC and ALS.


----------



## lmcgbaj

If high end watches would have been dessert, JLC would be sugar.


----------



## hvgotcodes

Isn't there absolute no doubt that JLC has watches in its lineup that are high end? Look no farther than the recent HM 11 - an absolute tour de force of horological mastery. 

The problem with this question is how to deal with the fact that JLC has offering like the plain ole Master Control. A fine watch to be sure, made by a titan of the industry, but admittedly lacking in the finishing department (comparatively speaking). As well as the price department, as that seems to be all some people consider when considering whether something is high end. 

I think the reasonable answer is "JLC has some watches that are high end by any measure, and also has timepieces that are respectable but don't match up with equivalent high end pieces (like MV vs Calatrava).


----------



## Snoopy_dude

I would say JLC is high end, but it really comes down to what your definition of high end is. I consider my JLC MUT moon in rose gold a high end watch. However, while the movement itself is great, the finishing on it is not on par with my Breguet, or Patek (for the lack of Anglage work). The lack of finer finishing on some of their movements might be a reason someone would not consider it high end. Nevertheless it is high end in my book.


----------



## MattHofstadt

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Trel said:


> I said 'no'.
> 
> The bulk of JLC's line is not high end, it's mid-tier. Since they make their own movements, they will also make multi-axis repeater tourbillon perpetual calendars, to show that they can.
> 
> Let me put it this way: if Kia were to make a Korean equivalent of the Bugatti Veyron (including all of the Veyron's performance and luxury) and price it at a million dollars, is Kia now a high-end car company?


Comparing JLC to a Kia... come on, no offense to Kia owners, but JLC is quite a bit better than that. Perhaps Kia is more like a Bulova or Citizen. :rodekaart


----------



## shnjb

Is Audi high end because it makes lemans cars?
I say... Hmm


----------



## Locomotivebreath

shnjb said:


> Is Audi high end because it makes lemans cars?


Yes.


----------



## ScorpionRS

It's a no brainer. They make brilliant movements have original designs and have a a rich history. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## entropy96

It's a "high-end" brand that makes a lot of timepieces in SS. Hence, the price is much lower compared to its "gold-clad" competitors.

If they opted to make pieces in gold/platinum exclusively, their prices will be on par with the Holy Trinity.
The problem with that is the typical "budget-conscious" WIS would opt for the other brands.

If there was an 'official watch tier list' for high-end watches (from conglomerate brands), I would vote JLC #6 right after the Big 5 (PP, ALS, VC, AP, Breguet).


----------



## shartouh

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



heuerolexomega said:


> Without JLC , the high end watch industry will suffer


Yes you have right, cause Many High End Brands Use JLC Movments many years ago untill now.
and I don't think GO (Glashütte Original) is high end , also the only german brand in glashütte town is high end is always Lange&Söhne.


----------



## entropy96

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



shartouh said:


> I don't think GO (Glashütte Original) is high end , also the only german brand in glashütte town is high end is always Lange&Söhne.


+1

GO is NOT a high-end brand, even if the poll here says otherwise.


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



entropy96 said:


> +1
> 
> GO is NOT a high-end brand, even if the poll here says otherwise.


You say it with pure confidence yet i find it difficult to take your statement seriously since you would vote Montblanc as a "master" of haute horlogerie... You're sinking your own ship mate!


----------



## Ric Capucho

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



entropy96 said:


> +1
> 
> GO is NOT a high-end brand, even if the poll here says otherwise.


Go sing it to the birds in the trees, mate. 80% of the people here disagree with you.

Ric


----------



## PremierCurrency

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Watch some of their videos. After that, you'll learn it is simply a matter of fact that they produce some extraordinarily high end pieces. But whether or not you consider a blanket use of "high end" to describe them...to each their own...


----------



## bar2020

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Absolutely high-end in my book.

If AP started offering a stainless steel variant for majority of their models, would they be less high end?

JLC has all of the qualities of a high end manufacturer. They just offer more steel watches than the other high end companies, so they are more attainable and therefore less rare.

If they stuck with precious metals, there would be no way to even argue that they aren't high end.


----------



## entropy96

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



AbuKalb93 said:


> You say it with pure confidence yet i find it difficult to take your statement seriously since you would vote Montblanc as a "master" of haute horlogerie... You're sinking your own ship mate!


But Montblanc IS indeed a master of haute horlogerie.
Haven't you seen their Villeret pieces?
AFAIK, they are perhaps 1 of only 2 manufactures (the other is Seiko) who make watches from scratch. From cases down to the hairsprings.



Ric Capucho said:


> Go sing it to the birds in the trees, mate. 80% of the people here disagree with you.


Doesn't matter what the forum thinks.

The fact is GO was never intended to be a high-end brand.
Realistically, it competes with other "borderline high-end" brands like Rolex, Omega, Breitling, and Zenith.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



entropy96 said:


> But Montblanc IS indeed a master of haute horlogerie.
> Haven't you seen their Villeret pieces?
> *AFAIK, they are perhaps 1 of only 2 manufactures (the other is Seiko) who make watches from scratch. From cases down to the hairsprings.*
> 
> Doesn't matter what the forum thinks.
> 
> The fact is *GO* was never intended to be a high-end brand.
> Realistically, it *competes with other "borderline high-end" brands like Rolex, Omega, Breitling, and Zenith.*


Re: Montblanc...TY for pointing that out. It's a good thing to be aware of. I didn't know that about them

Re: GO....isn't it always (unfortunately) going to be the case that HE and non-HE is open to debate. I'm just glad I don't have to worry about whether my watches are or aren't HE since they all are were just perfect for me at the time I bought them.

All the best.


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



entropy96 said:


> But Montblanc IS indeed a master of haute horlogerie.
> Haven't you seen their Villeret pieces? Yes i have...
> AFAIK, they are perhaps 1 of only 2 manufactures (the other is Seiko) who make watches from scratch. From cases down to the hairsprings.
> 
> Interesting...although not 1 of 2
> 
> Doesn't matter what the forum thinks.
> 
> The fact is GO was never intended to be a high-end brand.
> Realistically,* it competes with other "borderline high-end" brands like Rolex, Omega, Breitling,* and Zenith.


Im not sure where to start but i will simply just add this to give you a picture of what im thinking...


----------



## entropy96

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



AbuKalb93 said:


> Im not sure where to start but i will simply just add this to give you a picture of what im thinking...


Here's a video about Montblanc Villeret:






I hope you find it interesting.


----------



## MattHofstadt

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



entropy96 said:


> The fact is GO was never intended to be a high-end brand.
> Realistically, it competes with other "borderline high-end" brands like Rolex, Omega, Breitling, and Zenith.


I don't understand this. GO was started by A.F. Lange, who later, in 1845, founded A. Lange & Söhne. Glashutte Original was originally called Original Glashutte, as they, under Lange's guidance, pioneered the now illustrious watch making tradition in Glashütte, Germany. Currently, over 95% of all the parts of GO watches are made in-house. Quoting an article on Hodinkee:

_"Over 95% of the parts in any Glashütte Original watch are made in-house, which is why tooling is so critical. Only six types of mechanical components are brought in from the outside - balance springs, barrel springs, rubies, shock-absorbers, levers, and escape wheels - and the must be purpose-built tools for making each unique component." _

Additionally, GO, unlike the brands you've compared them with, only output around 10,000 pieces per year. That warrants at least a few points for exclusivity when compared with the 1 million produced by Rolex annually or the 700k made by Omega each year (See thread here).

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing realistic about putting GO on the same level as Rolex, Omega, Breitling, and Zenith. :think:

_Edit for additional thought:_ I do agree with you though about Montblanc Villeret watches being Haute Horology. They are superb.


----------



## shnjb

Mont Blanc lolllllllllolllooll

I love their pens though.


----------



## entropy96

shnjb said:


> Mont Blanc lolllllllllolllooll
> 
> I love their pens though.


Yeah, and "Credor trollollololololol. It's just a Seiko." :roll:

"Watch snobs" never fail to amuse me.


----------



## AbuKalb93

I have watched the video and let me say, while interesting i was only slightly, very slightly impressed. With the amount of brands that make Tourbillons today...you would think there needs to be a lot more coming out of that brand to make it true haute horlogerie. Second, i will keep this a fairly short statement but GO puts Montblanc to absolute shame.

Here's longer than 9 minutes of pure haute horlogerie of a brand producing everything in house, even tools.








entropy96 said:


> Yeah, and "Credor trollollololololol. It's just a Seiko." :roll:
> 
> "Watch snobs" never fail to amuse me.












Credor defines to the watch snobs like us that although they make $200 watches, they should not be underestimated... They are far more capable than we can imagine and their GS will eat up Rolex and their Credor line will match some of the upper brands (even beyond Montblanc).










Im not a fan of the design but just look at that....

and then this..










Do not mess with the Japanese! They are far more capable than one would think!

P.S. I'd rank Zenith well above Omega, Rolex etc..


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> Mont Blanc lolllllllllolllooll
> 
> I love their pens though.


Arrogance is a creature. It does not have senses. It has only a sharp tongue and the pointing finger.
- Toba Beta

That's the sort of thing that makes no sense to me. I'm into watches, but substance is important when it comes to evaluating both specific watches as well as a brand in general, and to ignore the substance of Montblanc's products and think of them as a just pen company is to do oneself a disservice.

- Montblanc by Minerva Villeret
- Minerva Heritage
- Montblanc's Villeret Watches Maintain The Heritage Of Classic Swiss Watchmaking - Forbes
- Like Phoenix from the ashes - the rebirth of Minerva

Nothing in what you'll find in the links above should necessarily mean that one must like or desire a Montblanc watch. That's entirely a personal choice. I don't crave a Montblanc watch either, but it's not lost on me that they are making outstanding watches. I wouldn't openly show my lack of understanding about them or about the nature of corporations, or the luxury goods industry, by representing them as being just a pen company.

All the best.

Class is an aura of confidence that is being sure without being cocky. Class has nothing to do with money. Class never runs scared. It is self-discipline and self-knowledge. It's the sure-footedness that comes with having proved you can meet life.
- Ann Landers


----------



## PremierCurrency

Thankfully this pic was taken at such an angle that the "made in Japan" disclosure is hidden!


----------



## AbuKalb93

PremierCurrency said:


> Thankfully this pic was taken at such an angle that the "made in Japan" disclosure is hidden!


A lot of people would say the same sentence against "Made in Germany" so its quite surprising coming from you...since you own a Lange and all..

Just sayin..


----------



## shnjb

entropy96 said:


> Yeah, and "Credor trollollololololol. It's just a Seiko." :roll:
> 
> "Watch snobs" never fail to amuse me.


What's credor?? Is that a watch brand?
Sorry if I offended you but why don't you put a poll and see whether people think mb (the brand) is high end or not?


----------



## entropy96

AbuKalb93 said:


> Credor defines to the watch snobs like us that although they make $200 watches, they should not be underestimated... They are far more capable than we can imagine and their GS will eat up Rolex and their Credor line will match some of the upper brands (even beyond Montblanc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not mess with the Japanese! They are far more capable than one would think!
> 
> P.S. I'd rank Zenith well above Omega, Rolex etc..


Ah, the Eichi.
My dream watch.
I have already accepted the fact that I will never get a chance to own one, since it seems no one would sell it.

Impressive video. I think I may be underestimating GO a bit.
Though I must admit, I dislike their excessive use of machinery in "handcrafting" their timepieces.
I prefer the more traditional, nearly pure handmade approach of Micron Artist Studio (Credor) and Montblanc Villeret.

I agree with you about Zenith.
I, too, think they are superior to Rolex, Omega, and the like.

After watching that video, I think GO is probably superior to Omega as well, as far as Swatch Group brands are concerned.



shnjb said:


> What's credor?? Is that a watch brand?
> Sorry if I offended you but why don't you put a poll and see whether people think mb (the brand) is high end or not?


No need for that.
MB is not a high-end brand. It produces primarily low-end to mid-range timepieces.
Nonetheless, a few of their mid-range models are quite impressive for the price, like the Nicolas Rieussec Chronograph for instance.
It's the Montblanc (Minerva) manufacture in Villeret that makes traditional haute horlogerie timepieces.


----------



## shnjb

tony20009 said:


> Arrogance is a creature. It does not have senses. It has only a sharp tongue and the pointing finger.
> - Toba Beta
> 
> That's the sort of thing that makes no sense to me. I'm into watches, but substance is important when it comes to evaluating both specific watches as well as a brand in general, and to ignore the substance of Montblanc's products and think of them as a just pen company is to do oneself a disservice.
> 
> - Montblanc by Minerva Villeret
> - Minerva Heritage
> - Montblanc's Villeret Watches Maintain The Heritage Of Classic Swiss Watchmaking - Forbes
> - Like Phoenix from the ashes - the rebirth of Minerva
> 
> Nothing in what you'll find in the links above should necessarily mean that one must like or desire a Montblanc watch. That's entirely a personal choice. I don't crave a Montblanc watch either, but it's not lost on me that they are making outstanding watches. I wouldn't openly show my lack of understanding about them or about the nature of corporations, or the luxury goods industry, by representing them as being just a pen company.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Class is an aura of confidence that is being sure without being cocky. Class has nothing to do with money. Class never runs scared. It is self-discipline and self-knowledge. It's the sure-footedness that comes with having proved you can meet life.
> - Ann Landers


Right.

And tag heuer is high end because they make some amazing watches.

Tag heuer, omega and Mont Blanc: the masters of haute horlogerie. The holy trinity.

I've been to Mont Blanc enough times to learn that most of their watches are not haute horlogerie.
I am not laughing at their watches.
But to suggest they are the MASTERS of haute horlogerie is lolllllll


----------



## AbuKalb93

entropy96 said:


> Ah, the Eichi.
> My dream watch.
> I have already accepted the fact that I will never get a chance to own one, since it seems no one would sell it.
> 
> Impressive video. I think I may be underestimating GO a bit.
> Though I must admit, I dislike their excessive use of machinery in "handcrafting" their timepieces.
> I prefer the more traditional, nearly pure handmade approach of Micron Artist Studio (Credor) and Montblanc Villeret.
> 
> I agree with you about Zenith.
> I, too, think they are superior to Rolex, Omega, and the like.
> 
> After watching that video, I think GO is probably superior to Omega as well, as far as Swatch Group brands are concerned.
> 
> No need for that.
> MB is not a high-end brand. It produces primarily low-end to mid-range timepieces.
> Nonetheless, a few of their mid-range models are quite impressive for the price, like the Nicolas Rieussec Chronograph for instance.
> It's the Montblanc (Minerva) manufacture in Villeret that makes traditional haute horlogerie timepieces.


Finally!! A post that doesn't give me a heart attack! The Eichi was only made as 25 pieces and all sold for around $70,000 each. Good Luck!



shnjb said:


> Right.
> 
> And tag heuer is high end because they make some amazing watches.
> 
> Tag heuer, omega and Mont Blanc: the masters of haute horlogerie. The holy trinity.
> 
> I've been to Mont Blanc enough times to learn that most of their watches are not haute horlogerie.
> I am not laughing at their watches.
> *But to suggest they are the MASTERS of haute horlogerie is lollllll*l


:-d i know right?! That's what I had/still have beef with.. 
If 90% of your lineup is not haute horlogerie then that doesnt make you a MASTER. Only capable at most which is something any brand can do. There is a lot more to defining Masters tha simply capability. Those other factors don't come overnight.


----------



## PremierCurrency

AbuKalb93 said:


> A lot of people would say the same sentence against "Made in Germany" so its quite surprising coming from you...since you own a Lange and all..
> 
> Just sayin..


I'm sure there are people that say that about any watchmaking country, and they are free to say it. To each their own.

On a slightly related note, I just received payment on the Lange. Should it be removed from the signature line entirely, or a different color, or at the bottom? Whats the protocol?


----------



## entropy96

PremierCurrency said:


> I'm sure there are people that say that about any watchmaking country, and they are free to say it. To each their own.
> 
> On a slightly related note, I just received payment on the Lange. Should it be removed from the signature line entirely, or a different color, or at the bottom? Whats the protocol?


You can still add it in your "Past Collection", or remove it from your sig.
Or keep it on your sig as a memento, if you want.

What I'm sayin' is, you can do what you want with your sig. lol :-d We don't want to force you to follow any protocol.



shnjb said:


> Right.
> 
> And tag heuer is high end because they make some amazing watches.
> 
> Tag heuer, omega and Mont Blanc: the masters of haute horlogerie. The holy trinity.


I just had a peek at Tag Heuer's haute horlogerie timepieces at their website.

I particularly liked the Mikrograph and the Monaco V4.
I liked how the Mikrograph simply had the logo "Heuer", a slight throwback to the once-great Heuer brand.


----------



## shartouh

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



AbuKalb93 said:


> You say it with pure confidence yet i find it difficult to take your statement seriously since you would vote Montblanc as a "master" of haute horlogerie... You're sinking your own ship mate!


+1 the Montblanc is not the Master of haute horlogerie, But you like F.P. Journe as the best of best what your think about Roger Dubuis? where all his Cal. in house cal and all of them with Geneva Hallmark and c.o.s.c.

I think the Roger Dubuis is the best of best . D

I think the Rogrer Dubuis


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



shartouh said:


> +1 the Montblanc is not the Master of haute horlogerie, But you like F.P. Journe as the best of best what your think about Roger Dubuis? where all his Cal. in house cal and all of them with Geneva Hallmark and c.o.s.c.
> 
> I think the Roger Dubuis is the best of best . D
> 
> I think the Rogrer Dubuis


Personal taste, RD makes exotic pieces but personally not to my liking and i wouldnt spend what he asks for his pieces. Think as you please mate! Its all gewd!


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> Right.
> 
> And tag heuer is high end because they make some amazing watches.
> 
> Tag heuer, omega and Mont Blanc: the masters of haute horlogerie. The holy trinity.
> 
> I've been to Mont Blanc enough times to learn that most of their watches are not haute horlogerie.
> I am not laughing at their watches.
> But to suggest they are the MASTERS of haute horlogerie is lolllllll


I'll say that in the past several months we've had more than a few discussions on the "high end" topic, a careful review of which makes clear that what is and isn't "high end" hardly is consistently cut and dried. First, the term isn't universally applicable to every watch a given brand makes, even when the brand otherwise is considered high end. Second, the term isn't necessarily applicable at the brand level. Third, we couldn't as a group even agree on a precise definition of the term; we couldn't even agree on a set of general attributes or even a price range. Fourth, it's pretty clear that some folks are going to buy whatever they like regardless of whether it's "high end" or not and it's similarly clear that some folks are stressed out if "this or that" watch isn't or is considered "high end." What was pretty clear is that on a watch by watch basis, each individual can decide whether s/he thinks the watch in question is or isn't "high end."

Those three things make the term useless in nearly any substantive discussion when it's used as anything more than just a very general identifier of a class of watches having whatever properties the reader deems such a watch has. That even using the term that way is likely to create consternation among some readers militates for using it very sparingly just as one would hot sauce or perfume.

I don't think anyone called MB "masters of haute horology." Perhaps I didn't read all the posts re: MB; I don't always read every post in a thread. Out of curiosity, what exactly is a "master of haute horology?" For me a "master of haute horology" would be a person, not a company, but I really haven't the first thought to just what skills and abilities such a person would (1) have and (2) have demonstrated repeatedly.

All the best.

It has to be emphasized that if the pain were readily describable most of the countless sufferers from this ancient affliction would have been able to confidently depict for their friends and loved ones (even their physicians) some of the actual dimensions of their torment.
- William Styron, _Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness _


----------



## Dancing Fire

tony20009 said:


> I don't think anyone called MB "masters of haute horology." Perhaps I didn't read all the posts re: MB; I don't always read every post in a thread. *Out of curiosity, what exactly is a "master of haute horology?"* For me a "master of haute horology" would be a person, not a company, but I really haven't the first thought to just what skills and abilities such a person would (1) have and (2) have demonstrated repeatedly.


 His name is Philippe Dufour ..;-)


----------



## Snoopy_dude

tony20009 said:


> I'll say that in the past several months we've had more than a few discussions on the "high end" topic, a careful review of which makes clear that what is and isn't "high end" hardly is consistently cut and dried. First, the term isn't universally applicable to every watch a given brand makes, even when the brand otherwise is considered high end. Second, the term isn't necessarily applicable at the brand level. Third, we couldn't as a group even agree on a precise definition of the term; we couldn't even agree on a set of general attributes or even a price range. Fourth, it's pretty clear that some folks are going to buy whatever they like regardless of whether it's "high end" or not and it's similarly clear that some folks are stressed out if "this or that" watch isn't or is considered "high end." What was pretty clear is that on a watch by watch basis, each individual can decide whether s/he thinks the watch in question is or isn't "high end."
> 
> Those three things make the term useless in nearly any substantive discussion when it's used as anything more than just a very general identifier of a class of watches having whatever properties the reader deems such a watch has. That even using the term that way is likely to create consternation among some readers militates for using it very sparingly just as one would hot sauce or perfume.


I once met a person who wore a Patek grand complication tourbillon. He did not know much about/care much for watches other than the fact that his only timepiece costs north of 300K. Since the most expensive time piece from my small collection costs around 70K, it would not be considered high end by someone like him based on the price tag alone. Nonetheless, it does not prevent me from enjoying every single one of my timepiece ranging from several Ks and up.


----------



## Snoopy_dude

Dancing Fire said:


> Philippe Dufour ..;-)


I was thinking that too


----------



## shnjb

tony20009 said:


> I don't think anyone called MB "masters of haute horology." Perhaps I didn't read all the posts re: MB;












There you go


----------



## tony20009

Snoopy_dude said:


> I once met a person who wore a Patek grand complication tourbillon. He did not know much about/care much for watches other than the fact that his only timepiece costs north of 300K. *Since the most expensive time piece from my small collection costs around 70K, it would not be considered high end by someone like him based on the price tag alone.* Nonetheless, it does not prevent me from enjoying every single one of my timepiece ranging from several Ks and up.


It hurt to think that a boy would not have him at his value of himself.
- Richard Llewellyn, _How Green Was My Valley _

Well, you see the thing is that folks who buy things like $300K watches aren't so small minded that the fact that they spend vast sums on a watch blinds them to the fact that things costing far, far, less are still "high end."

If one is looking to buy a home and of the ones one likes, one costs $1.2M, one costs $800K, and another costs $3M and all three are more or less in the same general area of town, with substantively equal access to shopping, schools, etc. The fact is that all of them are expensive. One is dramatically more expensive. Regardless of which home one buys, one'd be silly to call the least expensive one "not expensive." A $300 bottle of wine is expensive, but so is a $100 bottle. A $100K engagement ring is expensive, but so is a $30K one.

It's the same with watches. A high end watch is an excellent watch and excellent watches can be had at many price points. It would be ludicrous to think that just because one item is priced lower than another that the lower one isn't also "high end" or excellent. So, yes, your $70K watch is "high end" too, or at least from a monetary perspective it is, but then so is your or someone else's $20K watch. The extent to which an individual is more or less able to afford a thing doesn't have anything to do with whether that thing is expensive or "high end" or whatever term you want to use.

People buying such things are quite aware that all of them are "high end," regardless of how pricey is the thing they are willing to afford in comparison to the things other choose to afford. Folks who have the luxury of large sums of disposable income have no reason to look down on less fortunate people, equally fortunate people who choose not to spend as much, or those people's purchase decisions. Why would they? What have they to gain? If anything, folks who are more fortunate incline toward learning about and developing an appreciation for the "stuff," to which they haven't been exposed all their lives.

If you and I both have $50K to spend on a watch and I choose to buy a $45K FPJ, and you choose to buy a $15K Breguet, why would I determine that you didn't also buy a "high end" watch? The fact of the matter is that I wouldn't. I wouldn't because I'm quite content with my own purchase and I'm happy for you so long as you are also happy with your own purchase. We both have nice watches and we are both happy. You found happiness for less money than I did. That, IMO, actually puts you ahead of me. The truth is I would like to have found a watch that suited me and cost less. Maybe next time we go shopping I will choose the less pricey item. (I sure hope so anyway. <winks>)

The "snobbery" about which you theorized is the sort of thing kids from wealthy families do for a short time somewhere between 15 and 18. Then they grow up. Kids from comfortable, but not decidedly wealthy, families tend to do that sort of thing a bit later in life and for a bit longer period, but they mature usually by the time they start their careers. Indeed, though I have no hard studies or statistics to support my speculation, but if I were asked, I'd posit that snobbery and arrogance (re: money and things) is inversely proportional to actual wealth and social standing. I haven't the first idea why that's what my casual observations from the past 40+ years suggest, but I know that's sure what it seems like to me based on those years of living.

All the best.

National boundaries are not evident when we view the Earth from space. Fanatical ethnic or religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars.
- Carl Sagan, _Cosmos _


----------



## PremierCurrency

tony20009 said:


> A $300 bottle of wine is expensive, but so is a $100 bottle..........It would be ludicrous to think that just because one item is priced lower than another that the lower one isn't also "high end" or excellent.


I would never call a $100 bottle of wine expensive. However, by doing so, doesn't mean I'm not calling it "high end". Which begs the question: Must price and high end go hand-and-hand, or can there sometimes be a disconnect? I am _a__lways_ in favor of the latter.


----------



## seanwontreturn

PremierCurrency said:


> I would never call a $100 bottle of wine expensive. However, by doing so, doesn't mean I'm not calling it "high end". Which begs the question: Must price and high end go hand-and-hand, or can there sometimes be a disconnect? I am _a__lways_ in favor of the latter.


someone else will say the same thing to 300 wine. It doesnt matter its 300 or 3000 when it comes down to a particular individual but to the majority of watch buyers the price tag is a must to end high a product. JLC is a high end.


----------



## ilikebigbutts

PremierCurrency said:


> I would never call a $100 bottle of wine expensive. However, by doing so, doesn't mean I'm not calling it "high end". Which begs the question: Must price and high end go hand-and-hand, or can there sometimes be a disconnect? I am _a__lways_ in favor of the latter.


Some might even consider consider a $100 bottle of wine to be 'low dollar' :-d


----------



## tony20009

PremierCurrency said:


> I would never call a $100 bottle of wine expensive. However, by doing so, doesn't mean I'm not calling it "high end". Which begs the question: Must price and high end go hand-and-hand, or can there sometimes be a disconnect? I am _a__lways_ in favor of the latter.


A beautiful thing happens when we start paying attention to each other. It is by participating more in your relationship that you breathe life into it.
- Steve Maraboli, _Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience_

By itself, "expensive" pretty clearly means that something has a high price or costs a lot of money. There are definitely differing syntactical constructions applicable to the word "expensive" and given the way English works, those constructions yield different denotations and connotations to the term. And no, it's not a grammar thing _per se_, it's just a matter of understanding what a word means (or can mean) and crafting one's statements/questions to convey the desired meaning to the audience.


It's not expensive to me. = I find it affordable. That's one thing and I have no issue with a person saying that. I won't often talk/write that_ I_ find something affordable or not so. That I bought the thing is proof enough that I found it affordable, unless one is of a mind to question my ability to determine for myself whether I can or cannot afford something. That I didn't buy an item may indicate I deemed it unaffordable, but it it might instead mean I just didn't want to buy it for some reason or other. I don't care to get into affordability discussions as I'm not keen to discuss directly my personal financial position when I don't need to. I was just raised to understand that that sort of thing is just vulgar and as an adult, I continue to thing such topics vulgar. I'm also not especially interested in others financial status, although there are two common exceptions to that general lack of interest:
Individuals with whom I am planning to enter into a business and/or financial relationship - I absolutely will not enter into any such arrangement without knowing with certainty their ability to meet their financial obligations as goes our involvement. I will also share mine with them. 
Individuals who want to give me things - I'm generally quite keen to accept gifts, but certain gifts I might decline if I think the gift is pricier than is appropriate for that person to give me. In that sort of case, I don't need an exact accounting of their financial status; a general sense will do. For example, I don't let my children or less fortunate relatives give me gifts that are what I consider to be "too much." On the other hand, if a total stranger is of a mind to gift me with some cash or a very nice watch, I'll take it and thank them, so long as I don't think it's stolen. LOL If it's a fake watch, well, it just is. I can live with that; it's still a gift. LOL (hint, hint....LOL) 

It's not expensive. = It doesn't cost a lot of money. This statement has nothing to do with whether one finds it affordable or not. It's about where an item lands on a continuum of possible prices. Sure there's a middle ground where it's not easy to say what "a lot of money" is, but considering the nature of the item and it's relative price in comparison to similar items that one can buy, past a certain price, there's just no way to say that an item does not cost a lot of money. In the example above, $100 is a lot of money for a bottle of wine. It may not be a lot of your money, but that would be about what you can and/or cannot afford and not about the bottle of wine itself. 
It's too expensive. = The item costs more than one thinks it should cost or it means it costs more than they are willing to spend. There's nothing to suggest the person can or cannot afford it and based on the price, I know whether it's expensive, not expensive or in that grey area. The other "stuff" the speaker says will help me determine where on the price continuum the thing lands. With that knowledge, I can have a conversation with them and address them within the context that has meaning for them.

This sort of statement is a personal judgement call. Such a statement always needs an explanation/clarification in order for the audience to understand why one feels that way. Without an explanation it is nothing more than a baseless assertion. To make a baseless assertion is to pontificate or issue an edict. Obviously, any one can mention what they have observed, but that's not pontificating, that's describing. Anyone can state a position, and so long as it's accompanied with an explanation, that's not pontificating either; it's taking a position and making a case for why one has that point of view. Depending on the subject, some folks can pontificate and their pronouncements can be accepted, others cannot.

For example, when a potential client tells me that my proposed fees are too expensive, I don't need them necessarily to explain why they feel that way, but I will have a discussion with them to learn what I need to and can do to win their business. It that situation, the key take-away is that they aren't willing to pay what I'm asking for the services I'm offering to provide and it's my job to figure out if there's some middle ground that works for us both. When another consumer on WUS says a watch is too expensive, I want to know why they think so. Perhaps they know something about the watch I don't, perhaps I know something they don't; perhaps they haven't considered something I have; perhaps I haven't considered something they have; or perhaps what is important about a watch in their mind isn't that important in mine, or vice versa, or something else entirely. Whatever it is, I would like to learn about it.

One thing I learned from questioning folks about their "it's too expensive" statements is that some folks "flip" watches. (That was a completely unknown thing to me prior to joining WUS.) Often enough for those folks, a watch can be "too expensive" because they think they won't be able to re-sell it for as much as they might want to later.

While I don't relate much to the idea of re-selling a watch, if that's what someone tells me, I'm likely to just take their word for it unless they cite some specific sum that just seems entirely unlikely (be it too high or too low). If the sum cited just seems wildly improbable, I may check to see if the watch(s) being discussed really does lose/retain as much value as the writer claimed. If I check around and discover that they are right, well I've learned something new. I don't know if I'll have any personal use for the information, but if I'm asked about it in the future, I'll be equipped to give an accurate and objective reply. If I see evidence that the expectations/scenario on which they base their opinion may be off, I'll share what I found just for the sake of sharing information since I did bother to look, but that's about as far as I'll go with that. The truth is I don't care what they can sell it for and they can do what they want with the info I shared. Either way, ore of us or both of us had the opportunity to learn something and we learned something that we can factor into our own subjective choices re: future purchases. 

As for the correlation between "high end" and price, well, as has often been said, many people have varying definitions for HE, but everyone knows what a price is. I happen to think that a watch at or above a certain price is HE, provided it's not an complete scam like that TWC watch that Stauer used to sell for $5K even though TWC sold it for $3K at the exact same time. (It's not often the case that that sort of thing is what we discuss here in the HEW forum, but I wanted to make that point clear.) I don't think, however, that price alone is always enough to make a thing HE.

From where I sit, the only "disconnect" I can find is the use of the term itself and what's in the minds of the folks here when they use it. I'd expect that whatever HEW means here on WUS, it means that consistently, but that's just not so.

I have to say that I've talked watches with quite a few folks outside of WUS, and only on WUS have I ever encountered any discussion of what is or isn't a HEW. I don't have the faintest idea why that is, but I have tried to figure it out. The several watch collectors whom I know personally -- really just other folks who buy expensive watches much as as you and I do -- don't have a problem with whatever one calls a HEW. Ditto for the retailers I know, the auctioneers, and the few random folks I meet who happen to have on a HEW. None of them are so wrapped up in what HEW means and all of them and I see nothing wrong with just using the term as a synonym for "nice watch that costs a good bit more than most watches," or "nice watch made by a person/company whose prices mostly are a good bit higher than most watches."

If, within the specifics of a given conversation, that meant that Rolex, JLC, VC, Omega, and Hermes are all HEW, I and the folks I know personally were fine with that. Maybe someone didn't agree that Tag (or some specific Tag watch) is a maker of high end watches, but we still could continue the conversation and we knew the main points of whatever was being discussed. Whether Tag or any of the others is or isn't HE wasn't the point and whatever the point was, the Tag watch that pertained to the conversation did have the relevant qualities just as the others did, so for that conversation, it was a HEW.

All the best.

The child intuitively comprehends that although these stories are unreal, they are not untrue ...
- Bruno Bettelheim, _The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales _


----------



## Trel

Since "high-end" is so ill-defined, it just comes down to feeling anyway. 
If you have to ask yourself, "Is it really high-end?" It's probably not.

It doesn't mean the brand is not respected or prestigious or exclusive. *It's just not in the rarefied air at the very top.*
(In sports terms, it's still an Olympic athlete, standing miles above club-level athletes, but it's still not a gold medalist.)

Think about it this way: if this thread had been entitled, "Is Patek high-end or not?" It would be a short thread. "Of course it is. Next thread." 
If this thread had been entitled, "Is Victorinox high-end or not?" It would be a short thread. "No. Next thread."

The fact that this thread is now 8 pages of people trying to justify JLC's inclusion into "high-end" means it's not. It's a tweener. A respected brand that does a lot of impressive things, including some very interesting complications, including use of precious metals, including some very high price tags.

JLC does, however, lack something that high-end brands have: exclusivity. JLC puts out a lot of watches and most of them are reasonably priced. Richemont releases rough production figures for their brands. In 2011:
- A. Lange & Soehne > 5,000
- Vacheron Constantin > 20,000
- Jaeger-LeCoultre > 50,000


----------



## shartouh

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



AbuKalb93 said:


> Personal taste, RD makes exotic pieces but personally not to my liking and i wouldnt spend what he asks for his pieces. Think as you please mate! Its all gewd!


That was just a question on RD, I also believe it is not for me, I swing now to decide between Breuget or A.Lange & Söhne. 
for me F. P. Journe is not known yet but I hope that changes in the future. all the best


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



shartouh said:


> That was just a question on RD, I also believe it is not for me, I swing now to decide between Breuget or A.Lange & Söhne.
> *for me F. P. Journe is not known yet* but I hope that changes in the future. all the best


Not known by whom?


----------



## shnjb

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



entropy96 said:


> +1
> 
> GO is NOT a high-end brand, even if the poll here says otherwise.


Like I said, heuer, omega and Mont Blanc are the true masters of haute horlogerie


----------



## shnjb

But to be fair I think Nixon and diesel have been pumping out some fantastic saucer-themed watches.


----------



## AbuKalb93

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



shnjb said:


> Like I said, heuer, omega and Mont Blanc are the true masters of haute horlogerie


Joke of the week! Bam bam boom!! :thumbup:


tony20009 said:


> Not known by whom?


Went to pick up my Blancpain a few days ago and the SA never heard of the brand. I was asked if it was expensive and whats the point of putting gold in the movement if you wont see it. I was speechless...

I like the fact that only real aficionados know about it.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



AbuKalb93 said:


> Joke of the week! Bam bam boom!! :thumbup:
> 
> *Went to pick up my Blancpain a few days ago and the SA never heard of the brand. I was asked if it was expensive and whats the point of putting gold in the movement if you wont see it. I was speechless...*
> 
> I like the fact that only real aficionados know about it.


That I can see happening. Last Fall I spoke with a D.C. area watch store salesperson, mentioning that the Rolex Sub in the case looked thicker than I remembered the Submarniner. He just said, "Hmmm. I don't know why that is." I asked to see it, and after he handed it to me I looked at it and said, "It doesn't say Submariner." Then I asked him if he is "into" watches. He admitted that he isn't.

The fact that he's not "into" watches didn't surprise or bother me and quite frankly, I don't hold that against him. That he wasn't familiar with the a major difference between two models of what is likely the most popular luxury brand in his store (they also carry Omega, but the store didn't carry anything less well known) did bother me. It suggested to me that he is/was not a good source of information, of simple facts.

All the best.

A strong man is able to admit that he bleeds like everyone else.
- Chloe J. Blankenship


----------



## MattHofstadt

Trel said:


> Think about it this way: if this thread had been entitled, "Is Patek high-end or not?" It would be a short thread. "Of course it is. Next thread."
> If this thread had been entitled, "Is Victorinox high-end or not?" It would be a short thread. "No. Next thread."
> 
> The fact that this thread is now 8 pages of people trying to justify JLC's inclusion into "high-end" means it's not. It's a tweener. A respected brand that does a lot of impressive things, including some very interesting complications, including use of precious metals, including some very high price tags.
> 
> JLC does, however, lack something that high-end brands have: exclusivity. JLC puts out a lot of watches and most of them are reasonably priced. Richemont releases rough production figures for their brands. In 2011:
> - A. Lange & Soehne > 5,000
> - Vacheron Constantin > 20,000
> - Jaeger-LeCoultre > 50,000


Are you saying JLC isn't high-end because of production volumes? I hate to burst bubbles, but as of 2013, Patek is producing around 50,000 watches per year, just 10k less than JLC (see thread on 2013 production volumes). If high-end is just a function of production volume (exclusivity), then are Fortis, Blancpain, GO, Zenith, VC, & Ulysee Nardin all higher-end than Patek Philippe?

Probably, this isn't the case. But what about all the Patek Philippe watches that have used JLC movements? Are they still high-end? Just as when the AP Royal Oak debuted in 1972, the 1976 debut of the PP Nautilus used a JLC movement (Cal. 920). Would those watches not have been high-end, and if they were, is it just because of the brand name, or are simply the watch cases better for AP and PP?


----------



## Trel

No, exclusivity is not the only thing that goes into it, but it is something. Everything contributes.

The point, of course, is that you seem to think that being a respected manufacturer of mid-level luxury pieces with some spectacular horological pieces is somehow an insult to JLC. (Or, maybe you bought one thinking it was playing in the same league as Patek...)

High-end is high-end. You know it when you see it, but it's very difficult to define. For example, it's why Hublot is not considered high-end, just expensive luxury. Of course, everyone wants their favorite brand to be high-end. It's the same reason that 19% of Americans think they're in the top 1%.

The point of the high-end is to be difficult to get into. The point is to have a bunch of very respected brands NOT be in it. If you start adding every prestigious maker into the high-end category, you cheapen the whole thing. Not including the tiny micro-brands, there really shouldn't be more than a handful of brands in the high-end. Otherwise, we might as well start calling it, "the upper half".


----------



## jpohn

tony20009 said:


> A beautiful thing happens when we start paying attention to each other. It is by participating more in your relationship that you breathe life into it.
> - Steve Maraboli, _Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience_
> 
> By itself, "expensive" pretty clearly means that something has a high price or costs a lot of money. There are definitely differing syntactical constructions applicable to the word "expensive" and given the way English works, those constructions yield different denotations and connotations to the term. And no, it's not a grammar thing _per se_, it's just a matter of understanding what a word means (or can mean) and crafting one's statements/questions to convey the desired meaning to the audience.
> 
> 
> It's not expensive to me. = I find it affordable. That's one thing and I have no issue with a person saying that. I won't often talk/write that_ I_ find something affordable or not so. That I bought the thing is proof enough that I found it affordable, unless one is of a mind to question my ability to determine for myself whether I can or cannot afford something. That I didn't buy an item may indicate I deemed it unaffordable, but it it might instead mean I just didn't want to buy it for some reason or other. I don't care to get into affordability discussions as I'm not keen to discuss directly my personal financial position when I don't need to. I was just raised to understand that that sort of thing is just vulgar and as an adult, I continue to thing such topics vulgar. I'm also not especially interested in others financial status, although there are two common exceptions to that general lack of interest:
> Individuals with whom I am planning to enter into a business and/or financial relationship - I absolutely will not enter into any such arrangement without knowing with certainty their ability to meet their financial obligations as goes our involvement. I will also share mine with them.
> Individuals who want to give me things - I'm generally quite keen to accept gifts, but certain gifts I might decline if I think the gift is pricier than is appropriate for that person to give me. In that sort of case, I don't need an exact accounting of their financial status; a general sense will do. For example, I don't let my children or less fortunate relatives give me gifts that are what I consider to be "too much." On the other hand, if a total stranger is of a mind to gift me with some cash or a very nice watch, I'll take it and thank them, so long as I don't think it's stolen. LOL If it's a fake watch, well, it just is. I can live with that; it's still a gift. LOL (hint, hint....LOL)
> 
> It's not expensive. = It doesn't cost a lot of money. This statement has nothing to do with whether one finds it affordable or not. It's about where an item lands on a continuum of possible prices. Sure there's a middle ground where it's not easy to say what "a lot of money" is, but considering the nature of the item and it's relative price in comparison to similar items that one can buy, past a certain price, there's just no way to say that an item does not cost a lot of money. In the example above, $100 is a lot of money for a bottle of wine. It may not be a lot of your money, but that would be about what you can and/or cannot afford and not about the bottle of wine itself.
> It's too expensive. = The item costs more than one thinks it should cost or it means it costs more than they are willing to spend. There's nothing to suggest the person can or cannot afford it and based on the price, I know whether it's expensive, not expensive or in that grey area. The other "stuff" the speaker says will help me determine where on the price continuum the thing lands. With that knowledge, I can have a conversation with them and address them within the context that has meaning for them.
> 
> This sort of statement is a personal judgement call. Such a statement always needs an explanation/clarification in order for the audience to understand why one feels that way. Without an explanation it is nothing more than a baseless assertion. To make a baseless assertion is to pontificate or issue an edict. Obviously, any one can mention what they have observed, but that's not pontificating, that's describing. Anyone can state a position, and so long as it's accompanied with an explanation, that's not pontificating either; it's taking a position and making a case for why one has that point of view. Depending on the subject, some folks can pontificate and their pronouncements can be accepted, others cannot.
> 
> For example, when a potential client tells me that my proposed fees are too expensive, I don't need them necessarily to explain why they feel that way, but I will have a discussion with them to learn what I need to and can do to win their business. It that situation, the key take-away is that they aren't willing to pay what I'm asking for the services I'm offering to provide and it's my job to figure out if there's some middle ground that works for us both. When another consumer on WUS says a watch is too expensive, I want to know why they think so. Perhaps they know something about the watch I don't, perhaps I know something they don't; perhaps they haven't considered something I have; perhaps I haven't considered something they have; or perhaps what is important about a watch in their mind isn't that important in mine, or vice versa, or something else entirely. Whatever it is, I would like to learn about it.
> 
> One thing I learned from questioning folks about their "it's too expensive" statements is that some folks "flip" watches. (That was a completely unknown thing to me prior to joining WUS.) Often enough for those folks, a watch can be "too expensive" because they think they won't be able to re-sell it for as much as they might want to later.
> 
> While I don't relate much to the idea of re-selling a watch, if that's what someone tells me, I'm likely to just take their word for it unless they cite some specific sum that just seems entirely unlikely (be it too high or too low). If the sum cited just seems wildly improbable, I may check to see if the watch(s) being discussed really does lose/retain as much value as the writer claimed. If I check around and discover that they are right, well I've learned something new. I don't know if I'll have any personal use for the information, but if I'm asked about it in the future, I'll be equipped to give an accurate and objective reply. If I see evidence that the expectations/scenario on which they base their opinion may be off, I'll share what I found just for the sake of sharing information since I did bother to look, but that's about as far as I'll go with that. The truth is I don't care what they can sell it for and they can do what they want with the info I shared. Either way, ore of us or both of us had the opportunity to learn something and we learned something that we can factor into our own subjective choices re: future purchases.
> 
> As for the correlation between "high end" and price, well, as has often been said, many people have varying definitions for HE, but everyone knows what a price is. I happen to think that a watch at or above a certain price is HE, provided it's not an complete scam like that TWC watch that Stauer used to sell for $5K even though TWC sold it for $3K at the exact same time. (It's not often the case that that sort of thing is what we discuss here in the HEW forum, but I wanted to make that point clear.) I don't think, however, that price alone is always enough to make a thing HE.
> 
> From where I sit, the only "disconnect" I can find is the use of the term itself and what's in the minds of the folks here when they use it. I'd expect that whatever HEW means here on WUS, it means that consistently, but that's just not so.
> 
> I have to say that I've talked watches with quite a few folks outside of WUS, and only on WUS have I ever encountered any discussion of what is or isn't a HEW. I don't have the faintest idea why that is, but I have tried to figure it out. The several watch collectors whom I know personally -- really just other folks who buy expensive watches much as as you and I do -- don't have a problem with whatever one calls a HEW. Ditto for the retailers I know, the auctioneers, and the few random folks I meet who happen to have on a HEW. None of them are so wrapped up in what HEW means and all of them and I see nothing wrong with just using the term as a synonym for "nice watch that costs a good bit more than most watches," or "nice watch made by a person/company whose prices mostly are a good bit higher than most watches."
> 
> If, within the specifics of a given conversation, that meant that Rolex, JLC, VC, Omega, and Hermes are all HEW, I and the folks I know personally were fine with that. Maybe someone didn't agree that Tag (or some specific Tag watch) is a maker of high end watches, but we still could continue the conversation and we knew the main points of whatever was being discussed. Whether Tag or any of the others is or isn't HE wasn't the point and whatever the point was, the Tag watch that pertained to the conversation did have the relevant qualities just as the others did, so for that conversation, it was a HEW.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> The child intuitively comprehends that although these stories are unreal, they are not untrue ...
> - Bruno Bettelheim, _The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales _


The HEW debate is now this forum's specialty.

I would like to run a poll that covered 60 or so brands (HE - yes or no?) and take a look at the s-curve once the number of respondants is statistically-significant, however that is defined. It wouldn't settle any debates (nothing will), but it would serve as an interesting window into brand perception amongst a very specific subset of HEW consumers.


----------



## tigerpac

This even being a thread makes me sad (and I don't own any JLC) Makes me even more sad that its 9+ pages already


----------



## shnjb

Trel said:


> No, exclusivity is not the only thing that goes into it, but it is something. Everything contributes.
> 
> The point, of course, is that you seem to think that being a respected manufacturer of mid-level luxury pieces with some spectacular horological pieces is somehow an insult to JLC. (Or, maybe you bought one thinking it was playing in the same league as Patek...)
> 
> High-end is high-end. You know it when you see it, but it's very difficult to define. For example, it's why Hublot is not considered high-end, just expensive luxury. Of course, everyone wants their favorite brand to be high-end. It's the same reason that 19% of Americans think they're in the top 1%.
> 
> The point of the high-end is to be difficult to get into. The point is to have a bunch of very respected brands NOT be in it. If you start adding every prestigious maker into the high-end category, you cheapen the whole thing. Not including the tiny micro-brands, there really shouldn't be more than a handful of brands in the high-end. Otherwise, we might as well start calling it, "the upper half".


I think you are just defining high end as something a bit more exclusive than others.
Most would probably that JLC, perhaps because of their lower models, are lower than PP, ALS, VC, breguet, fp journe, AP, etc.

They just believe that the next few brands after that should be among high end too.
In JLC's case it's a special case because of their haute horlogerie division being unusually excellent now and before.


----------



## MattHofstadt

Trel said:


> No, exclusivity is not the only thing that goes into it, but it is something. Everything contributes.
> 
> The point, of course, is that you seem to think that being a respected manufacturer of mid-level luxury pieces with some spectacular horological pieces is somehow an insult to JLC. (*Or, maybe you bought one thinking it was playing in the same league as Patek...*)
> 
> *High-end is high-end. You know it when you see it*, but it's very difficult to define. For example, it's why Hublot is not considered high-end, just expensive luxury. Of course, everyone wants their favorite brand to be high-end. It's the same reason that 19% of Americans think they're in the top 1%.
> 
> *The point of the high-end is to be difficult to get into*. * The point is to have a bunch of very respected brands NOT be in it*. *If you start adding every prestigious maker into the high-end category, you cheapen the whole thing*. *Not including the tiny micro-brands, there really shouldn't be more than a handful of brands in the high-end. Otherwise, we might as well start calling it, "the upper half".*


On the one hand, as you allude to, high-end is difficult to "get in to" as a manufacturer. Necessarily, being closer to the top means there are more below. However, I fully disagree that the _"point"_ of high-end is to be exclusive. I'm not even sure that makes sense.

So what then meets the criteria of being high-end? I would suggest that a significant and rich horological history steeped with a multitude of industry leading innovations, and an esoteric level of quaity and craftsmanship is a good start. Sounds like JLC, right? I have no delusions of JLC being exactly on par with Patek, but while you say high-end is difficult to define and broader than simple exclusivity, your entire argument for high-end is completely devoid of the qualitative and historical aspects of the brands and the watches they produce, and solely focuses on "_exclusivity_" and "_difficult to get in to_".

Other than the exclusivity aspect, which Patek doesn't have to the extent you may have thought, and your assertion that "high-end is high-end. You know it when you see it...", for what reasons, exactly, do you not find JLC to be among the few brands in the high-end stratosphere? Additionally, just because two watches are high-end doesn't mean they are equal. I never implied that JLC was ostensibly equal on all fronts to Patek, but they are both high-end as high-end, like all qualitative strata of watches, have a range.


----------



## Trel

MattHofstadt;7406480However said:


> "point"[/I] of high-end is to be exclusive. I'm not even sure that makes sense.
> 
> So what then meets the criteria of being high-end? I would suggest that a significant and rich horological history steeped with a multitude of industry leading innovations, and an esoteric level of quaity and craftsmanship is a good start. Sounds like JLC, right? I have no delusions of JLC being exactly on par with Patek, but while you say high-end is difficult to define and broader than simple exclusivity, your entire argument for high-end is completely devoid of the qualitative and historical aspects of the brands and the watches they produce, and solely focuses on "_exclusivity_" and "_difficult to get in to_".
> 
> Other than the exclusivity aspect, which Patek doesn't have to the extent you may have thought, and your assertion that "high-end is high-end. You know it when you see it...", for what reasons, exactly, do you not find JLC to be among the few brands in the high-end stratosphere? Additionally, just because two watches are high-end doesn't mean they are equal. I never implied that JLC was ostensibly equal on all fronts to Patek, but they are both high-end as high-end, like all qualitative strata of watches, have a range.


High-end watches exist to serve the needs/desires of the wealthiest. It sounds a little cynical, but one of the things that people who own high-end pieces enjoy about them is guaranteeing that you will never see one like yours.

What makes a brand high-end? High-end clients. You need decades, if not centuries, of continued excellence, pushing the boundaries of craftsmanship, artistry, and innovation. But more than that, you need a sterling reputation as serving only high-end clients. The brands that we traditionally think of as high-end are both impeccably-made but are also basically completely unavailable to the normal consumer. Every single piece in range should have "it": the undefinable sense of luxury above-and-beyond.

Patek has it, even the simplest Calatrava or rubber-on-steel Aquanaut. (I don't mean to fixate on Patek, but it's basically the standard for unassailably 'high-end'.) Every Patek is *a Patek.* Every Lange, even every Royal Oak Offshore. They all say, "the guy wearing this must be important, somehow. I wonder what he does." You wonder less about the watch and wonder, instead, about the wearer.

A JLC Duometre will garner a wolf-whistle, but a five thousand dollar Master Control 3-hand? or a quartz Reverso? A JLC says, "that man's got good taste in watches."


----------



## shnjb

Trel said:


> A JLC Duometre will garner a wolf-whistle, but a five thousand dollar Master Control 3-hand? or a quartz Reverso? A JLC says, "that man's got good taste in watches."


Yes I agree with that.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

In my opinion, high-end should boil down to a number of objective attributes of the actual product, as opposed to subjective criteria such as "expensive", "prestigious", etc.

The objective criteria would include, innovation, quality of engineering and design, technical mastery, quality of fit and finish, timeless or trend-setting design, as opposed to trend following, etc.

And based on the foregoing, I believe JLC watches are "high end".


----------



## Trel

HRC-E.B. said:


> The objective criteria would include, innovation, quality of engineering and design, technical mastery, quality of fit and finish, timeless or trend-setting design, as opposed to trend following, etc.
> 
> And based on the foregoing, I believe JLC watches are "high end".


By that standard, TAG Heuer and Longines would be high-end, too. Swatch too, for that matter.


----------



## Ric Capucho

Trel said:


> By that standard, TAG Heuer and Longines would be high-end, too. Swatch too, for that matter.


Was that written in pique? Ric


----------



## Snoopy_dude

MattHofstadt said:


> Originally Posted by *Trel*
> Think about it this way: if this thread had been entitled, "Is Patek high-end or not?" It would be a short thread. "Of course it is. Next thread."
> If this thread had been entitled, "Is Victorinox high-end or not?" It would be a short thread. "No. Next thread."
> 
> The fact that this thread is now 8 pages of people trying to justify JLC's inclusion into "high-end" means it's not. It's a tweener. A respected brand that does a lot of impressive things, including some very interesting complications, including use of precious metals, including some very high price tags.
> 
> JLC does, however, lack something that high-end brands have: exclusivity. JLC puts out a lot of watches and most of them are reasonably priced. Richemont releases rough production figures for their brands. In 2011:
> - A. Lange & Soehne > 5,000
> - Vacheron Constantin > 20,000
> - Jaeger-LeCoultre > 50,000
> 
> Are you saying JLC isn't high-end because of production volumes? I hate to burst bubbles, but as of 2013, Patek is producing around 50,000 watches per year, just 10k less than JLC (see thread on 2013 production volumes). If high-end is just a function of production volume (exclusivity), then are Fortis, Blancpain, GO, Zenith, VC, & Ulysee Nardin all higher-end than Patek Philippe?
> 
> Probably, this isn't the case. But what about all the Patek Philippe watches that have used JLC movements? Are they still high-end? Just as when the AP Royal Oak debuted in 1972, the 1976 debut of the PP Nautilus used a JLC movement (Cal. 920). Would those watches not have been high-end, and if they were, is it just because of the brand name, or are simply the watch cases better for AP and PP?


Great point being discussed here. IMO, perhaps something else to consider is production volume vs actual market demand. Thierry Stern himself said that Patek could have doubled or tripled the current production volume for the line of Nautilus in order to fully meet the market demand, but in their intention to drive up the resale value they purposely don't. IMO, when you have a market demand that is twice or three times the production volume, there is a certain exclusivity to own such a watch(longer wait time to get your hands on one). 
To solely base on production volume, the good Jaeger Lecoultre is comparable to Patek. However, consider what the actual volume in demand for each of these two brands is. I say this from my personal experience, I waited less than a month for my local AD to get the JLC MUT moon in rose gold straight from Jaeger Switzerland. The wait time for the Nautilus was about 9 months for me. In comparison, my wait time for Breguet tradition GMT and Hora Mundi was 3 months and 4.5 months respectively. Based on those experiences, it would appear to me that JLC was more eager to meet their market demand compared to Breguet and Patek. Just my perception


----------



## MattHofstadt

Trel said:


> High-end watches exist to serve the needs/desires of the wealthiest. It sounds a little cynical, but one of the things that people who own high-end pieces enjoy about them is guaranteeing that you will never see one like yours.
> 
> What makes a brand high-end? High-end clients. You need decades, if not centuries, of continued excellence, pushing the boundaries of craftsmanship, artistry, and innovation. But more than that, you need a sterling reputation as serving only high-end clients. The brands that we traditionally think of as high-end are both impeccably-made but are also basically completely unavailable to the normal consumer. Every single piece in range should have "it": the undefinable sense of luxury above-and-beyond.
> 
> Patek has it, even the simplest Calatrava or rubber-on-steel Aquanaut. (I don't mean to fixate on Patek, but it's basically the standard for unassailably 'high-end'.) Every Patek is *a Patek.* Every Lange, even every Royal Oak Offshore. They all say, "the guy wearing this must be important, somehow. I wonder what he does." You wonder less about the watch and wonder, instead, about the wearer.
> 
> A JLC Duometre will garner a wolf-whistle, but a five thousand dollar Master Control 3-hand? or a quartz Reverso? A JLC says, "that man's got good taste in watches."


I agree about the wide range of JLC offerings. Frankly, I also wouldn't consider a Quartz Reverso as particularly high-end. Many of the basic Master series watches are just, in my opinion, at the lowest echelon of high-end, but still high-end none the less. For me, I just can't ignore JLC's historical significance and technical contributions. Additionally, they have certainly contributed to the compendium of standard high-end collector's watches, which have also been owned by some of histories most notable figures. After JLC created what could be considered the world's first sports watch in 1931, the Reverso, it had an immediate and illustrious following. For example, among the aristocracy who owned a Reverso was King Edward VIII of England... who also happened to be the Emperor of India.

If you had to make a list of brands that you generally consider to be high-end, what would it look like? For me, this is my non-exhaustive, non-comprehensive shortlist. This doesn't mean every watch produced by brands on this list is truly high-end and it doesn't mean there aren't high-end watches from brands not on the list:

1) Patek Philippe
2) A. Lange & Söhne
3) Audemars Piguet
4) FP Journe
5) Vacheron Constantin
6) Breguet
7) Jaeger-LeCoultre
8) Blancpain
9) Glashutte Original


----------



## entropy96

MattHofstadt said:


> *1) Patek Philippe*
> 2) A. Lange & Söhne
> 3) Audemars Piguet
> *4) FP Journe*
> 5) Vacheron Constantin
> 6) Breguet
> 7) Jaeger-LeCoultre
> 8) Blancpain
> *9) Glashutte Original*


----------



## MattHofstadt

entropy96 said:


> View attachment 1389964


Haha, sorry, Montblanc didn't make the list. =)


----------



## Trel

MattHofstadt said:


> *This doesn't mean every watch produced by brands on this list is truly high-end* and it doesn't mean there aren't high-end watches from brands not on the list:


See, that's where I differ in opinion. I feel any piece from a high-end brand must, itself, be high-end piece. (See my "Kia makes a Bugatti-fighter, ergo Kia now is on the same level as Bugatti" hypothetical from the first page.)



MattHofstadt said:


> 1) Patek Philippe
> 2) A. Lange & Söhne
> 3) Audemars Piguet
> 4) FP Journe
> 5) Vacheron Constantin
> 6) Breguet
> 7) Jaeger-LeCoultre
> 8) Blancpain
> 9) Glashutte Original


Good list. I'd drop GO and JLC. Maybe add Jaquet Droz.


----------



## entropy96

MattHofstadt said:


> Haha, sorry, Montblanc didn't make the list. =)


Patek, ALS, and AP over FPJ?

And GO doesn't deserve to be in the list.

Of course, Montblanc (Le Locle) doesn't deserve to be there. It's a mid-range manufacture.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Trel said:


> By that standard, TAG Heuer and Longines would be high-end, too. Swatch too, for that matter.


Nothing against you personally, but this particular comment has to rank among the most ridiculous I've read on all of these forums, or it was simply written in bad faith.

Quality of fit and finish obviously includes the important element of hand finishing and, on that level, nobody would ever mistake a TAG or an Omega for a JLC... It's fairly obvious when you look at these that they belong in a very different category. Come on!


----------



## Trel

HRC-E.B. said:


> Nothing against you personally, but this particular comment has to rank among the most ridiculous I've read on all of these forums


----------



## shartouh

MattHofstadt said:


> I agree about the wide range of JLC offerings. Frankly, I also wouldn't consider a Quartz Reverso as particularly high-end. Many of the basic Master series watches are just, in my opinion, at the lowest echelon of high-end, but still high-end none the less. For me, I just can't ignore JLC's historical significance and technical contributions. Additionally, they have certainly contributed to the compendium of standard high-end collector's watches, which have also been owned by some of histories most notable figures. After JLC created what could be considered the world's first sports watch in 1931, the Reverso, it had an immediate and illustrious following. For example, among the aristocracy who owned a Reverso was King Edward VIII of England... who also happened to be the Emperor of India.
> 
> If you had to make a list of brands that you generally consider to be high-end, what would it look like? For me, this is my non-exhaustive, non-comprehensive shortlist. This doesn't mean every watch produced by brands on this list is truly high-end and it doesn't mean there aren't high-end watches from brands not on the list:
> 
> 1) Patek Philippe
> 2) A. Lange & Söhne
> 3) Audemars Piguet
> 4) FP Journe
> 5) Vacheron Constantin
> 6) Breguet
> 7) Jaeger-LeCoultre
> 8) Blancpain
> 9) Glashutte Original


My list is :
1) Patek Philippe
2) A. Lange & Söhne
3) Greubel Forsey
4) Audemars Piguet
5) Roger Dubuis
6) Breguet
7) FP Journe
8) Jaeger-LeCoultre
9) Vacheron Constantin
10) Blancpain
11) Franck Muller
12) Glashutte Original 
13) IWC


----------



## Ric Capucho

Anyone look at the vote results lately?

Ric


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Trel said:


>


Thanks for the entertaining GIF. Email and web forums are notoriously bad media to convey sarcasm. I'm sorry if I missed it in your earlier post. It doesn't hurt to use smileys or other grammatical cues to assist your readers in detecting sarcasm in statements that can be perceived either way, you know.


----------



## Larry Darrell

There seems to be overwhelming agreement that PP, ALS, AP, VC, and Breguet (and possibly FP Journe) are in a class by themselves. There is also overwhelming agreement that JLC is the undisputed head of the next class (or possibly in that class by itself). So, 90% feel that restricting high end to only the very top class is too restrictive. In other words, "high end" for them doesn't mean "highest end."

I think of this distinction in terms of natural grouping. Use the following numbers for example: 100, 99, 99, 95, 85, 83, 81, 75. 

100, 99, and 99 are a natural grouping; 95 is in a natural grouping by itself; 85, 83, and 81 are a natural grouping; and 75 is in a natural grouping by itself.

Is 95 "high end" even though it is not in the highest natural grouping? 90% of people seem to think that 95 is high end because it is still very high and because it is much closer to the highest natural grouping than the grouping behind it.


----------



## PremierCurrency

I think it would be funner if there was more talk about nice watches instead of worrying which company is better...


----------



## Rdenney

Trel said:


> The fact that this thread is now 8 pages of people trying to justify JLC's inclusion into "high-end" means it's not. It's a tweener. A respected brand that does a lot of impressive things, including some very interesting complications, including use of precious metals, including some very high price tags.
> 
> JLC does, however, lack something that high-end brands have: exclusivity.
> 
> JLC puts out a lot of watches and most of them are reasonably priced. Richemont releases rough production figures for their brands. In 2011:
> - A. Lange & Soehne > 5,000
> - Vacheron Constantin > 20,000
> - Jaeger-LeCoultre > 50,000


And Patek Philippe, 30,000, about the same as Zenith. So, that dimension isn't much help, and the difference between 30k and 50k seems arbitrary in the way that the difference between either of those figures and, say, 500,000, is not.

But I want to challenge your statement that 8 pages have been spent discussing JLC. Six of those pages were two posts from Tony defining "expensive", and the remainder were relitigating the Glashutte Original poll.

Most of the handful of posts I saw that actually addressed JLC said "of course."

Rick "just perusing the thread" Denney


----------



## harryst

Trel said:


> See, that's where I differ in opinion. I feel any piece from a high-end brand must, itself, be high-end piece. (See my "Kia makes a Bugatti-fighter, ergo Kia now is on the same level as Bugatti" hypothetical from the first page.)


*Any *piece? As in "every"?

Are the quartz Pateks (still in the women's lineup) *high-end pieces*? They seem - to me - to be much lower-end than the lowest-end Nomos. Do you disagree?


----------



## PremierCurrency

Rdenney said:


> But I want to challenge your statement that 8 pages have been spent discussing JLC. Six of those pages were two posts from Tony defining "expensive", and the remainder were relitigating the Glashutte Original poll.


LOL |> |> |>


----------



## Ric Capucho

A smudge under 90% of voters now say JLC is high-end, and just 6.5% says it's *not* high-end. Seems to me that further protests from the no camp are moot. Give it up, no folks, the world disagrees with you.

Ric


----------



## systemcrasher

lol is JLC a high end brand... is this thread a joke?





























With watches like these, they are mediocre at best. I mean, who can't make tourbillon minute repeaters or perpetual calendar? Walk in the park aye?

And I don't know if Rolex collectors would appreciate peeps saying JLC is not high end due to lack of exclusivity at 50k sales... If more production and sales means less brand quality, then by that logic, Rolex must be a pile of crap cuz they shift near million units per year.


----------



## Crunchy

Lol yea agree with systemcrasher, what a lol thread...

Saying JLC is not high end is such watch snobbery


----------



## Trel

Ric Capucho said:


> A smudge under 90% of voters now say JLC is high-end, and just 6.5% says it's *not* high-end. Seems to me that further protests from the no camp are moot. Give it up, no folks, the world disagrees with you.
> 
> Ric


I guess you're right,  since there's no record of the majority ever being wrong, ever, in recorded history.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Trel said:


> I guess you're right,  since there's no record of the majority ever being wrong, ever, in recorded history.


There is, however, a record of the response form systemcrasher, right above, which makes a pretty compelling case, even against someone as determined as you seem to be to disagree with the majority, regardless of the cause one must endorse to that end...


----------



## Ric Capucho

Trel said:


> I guess you're right,  since there's no record of the majority ever being wrong, ever, in recorded history.


The majority have indeed been wrong on occasion, that's true. But the minority is typically wrong on almost all occasion, so forgive me if I take that view on *this* occasion.

And while we're at it, the majority also just ruled that Rolex is *not* high-end, so clearly it's not the case that a bunch of riff raff sneaked through the back door and skewed the JLC result.

Ric


----------



## Rdenney

Ric Capucho said:


> ...it's not the case that a bunch of riff raff sneaked through the back door and skewed the JLC result.


You mean except for you and me?

Rick "who might feel differently about JLC if his beater was a Royal Oak" Denney


----------



## shartouh

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Dancing Fire said:


> JLC is the best value (bang for the buck) in high end watches.


Yes but not for Re sell just for keep it for next generations. For Re sell just Rolex or PP


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



shartouh said:


> Yes but not for Re sell just for keep it for next generations. For Re sell just Rolex or PP


Oh, I think there are better watches for re:sale than Rolex and PP. Unfortunately, Rolex and PP's offerings (mostly) are bargains by comparison. LOL

I do think too that the whole "resale" matter has to be kept in perspective. I'm sure many a collector would pay a very tidy sum for certain models of used watches from some of today's top artisanal makers. The general public, however, probably wouldn't at all.

But to your point, among the mainstream, Rolex and PP are certainly the leaders on the resale front, but then there's a reason for that. David McRaney tells us:

Wait long enough, and what was once mainstream will fall into obscurity. When that happens, it will become valuable again to those looking for authenticity or irony or cleverness. The value, then, is not intrinsic. The thing itself doesn't have as much value as the perception of how it was obtained or why it is possessed. Once enough people join in, like with oversized glasses frames or slap bracelets, the status gained from owning the item or being a fan of the band is lost, and the search begins again.

You would compete like this no matter how society was constructed. Competition for status is built into the human experience at the biological level. Poor people compete with resources. The middle class competes with selection. The wealthy compete with possessions.

You sold out long ago in one way or another. The specifics of who you sell to and how much you make-those are only details.​- David McRaney, _You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself _​
I entirely agree with Mr. McRaney, but I have yet to acquiesce to accepting my biology. For me, the point of being human is, among other things, to be better than my biology. If we were to have remained hunters and gatherers like the bonobos or other fauna, we'd be extinct by now, out competed for resources. Our intellect is what distinguishes us and puts us ahead of the hoi polloi critters running about. It's how we emerged to be better than our biology, our physiology should allow. That is unless you want to believe the theory that we were shepherded into our current status by aliens. ;-)

All the best.


----------



## tomatoes

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Trel said:


> I said 'no'.
> 
> The bulk of JLC's line is not high end, it's mid-tier. Since they make their own movements, they will also make multi-axis repeater tourbillon perpetual calendars, to show that they can.
> 
> Let me put it this way: if Kia were to make a Korean equivalent of the Bugatti Veyron (including all of the Veyron's performance and luxury) and price it at a million dollars, is Kia now a high-end car company?


So....that makes Audemars Piguet...mid tier too! Right??


----------



## opticalserenity

systemcrasher said:


> lol is JLC a high end brand... is this thread a joke?


The most truth spoken here thus far. JLC defines the very nature of high end.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



Trel said:


> I said 'no'.
> 
> The bulk of JLC's line is not high end, it's mid-tier. Since they make their own movements, they will also make multi-axis repeater tourbillon perpetual calendars, to show that they can.
> 
> Let me put it this way: *if Kia were to make a Korean equivalent of the Bugatti Veyron (including all of the Veyron's performance and luxury) and price it at a million dollars, is Kia now a high-end car company?*


I don't know if they would or wouldn't. I do know that the Kia equivalent of the BugVey would certainly be a high end car regardless of whether Kia is a high end car company. But the issue isn't as I once was keen to think that there's a problem with the term "high end."

The problem is folks' failure to recognize how and when to use it. It's a basic vocabulary issue, not a watch, or car or company/brand issue. The term is a general one and it should be used in circumstances when no specific watch or brand (or car or car brand) is intended.

It's very fine to say something like "High end watches don't always cost more than $10K, but quite often they do." One really needs to replace "high end" with some other term (or no term) when discussing specific makes of watch because once a specific watch is identified, it doesn't really matter if it's high end or not. We all know what we are talking about and each person can decide for him-/herself whether the watch is or isn't high end. There just doesn't need to be any debate on the matter.

I mean really. If you think Watch X is high end and I think it isn't. At the end of the day, whose opinion will hold more weight with you? And which one matters more to you? I know right now your answer is your opinion. Were the question posed of me, the answer would be my opinion. And that's as it should be because at that level, that's whose opinion actually matters.

All the best.

Do what you think is right. Don't let people make the decision of right or wrong for you.
- Steve Maraboli,_ Life, the Truth, and Being Free _


----------



## entropy96

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

I think the problem here is that many folks' mentality is confined within a certain group of brands that exclusively make high-end watches, that they reject the notion of mid-tier brands making high-end timepieces.
I noticed such is the case with Chopard, Seiko, Bvlgari, Tag Heuer, Omega, and a slew of other brands.

Look, Hyundai is not known as a luxury car brand, but they do make an ultra luxury car called the Centennial/Equus.
It directly competes with the ToTL sedans Mercedes S-Class and BMW 7-Series.

Just because a brand is famous for making low-end/mid-end goods, doesn't necessarily mean that the brand is incapable of producing high-end goods.
High-end does not solely refer to the brand image and history of the company, but rather to the extremely superior build quality and price of the product.


----------



## Rdenney

To me, Zenith and Rolex are the embodiment of mid-tier brands. The movements are serially produced (Zenith is more open about this) and decorated in accordance with a price point below five figures. Both make more expensive models, but those for which they are known (Datejust or El Primero) are intended to be fine watches worn every day by well-heeled professionals. 

The haute horlogerie brands are aiming at the truly wealthy. But we live in a world where well-heeled professionals are truly wealthy by the standards of just a few years ago (on the scale of time many top Swiss watch brands have existed). That blurs the boundaries. But it's emotional, because these are symbols of wealth even to enthusiasts and nobody wants their self-worth invalidated (nor is it morally acceptable, at least in most places relevant on WUS, for those of greater means to do so).

When I look at JLC, though, I see a level of finish and decoration above Zenith (and well above Rolex). I see classic bridge designs, anglage, decouverture, and other signs of finissage beyond the perlage and cotes de Geneve available on common top-grade ETA movements. So, they are higher end than Zenith and Rolex, and feature-for-feature they fetch a higher price. 

But it's a continuum, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Either it has to be drawn by the moderators ("Right or wrong, only discussions of ________ brands are allowed in the High-End Forum"), by argument, or by vote. 

Given the watches announced in this forum, and the silence of the mods on this topic, I sense they are unwilling to draw the line (and I don't blame them). And voting has that unhappy outcome of relegating some viewpoints to minority status. But argument isn't working, either. There is much more traffic on this forum about defining "high end" than there is about watches not subject to dispute. 

Polling is no less arbitrary than any other hard line, and it is at least a little democratic. In the subject of JLC, the poll results are not marginal, despite the vocal minority. 

Rick "just repeating the bleeding obvious" Denney


----------



## Ric Capucho

Rdenney said:


> To me, Zenith and Rolex are the embodiment of mid-tier brands. The movements are serially produced (Zenith is more open about this) and decorated in accordance with a price point below five figures. Both make more expensive models, but those for which they are known (Datejust or El Primero) are intended to be fine watches worn every day by well-heeled professionals.
> 
> The haute horlogerie brands are aiming at the truly wealthy. But we live in a world where well-heeled professionals are truly wealthy by the standards of just a few years ago (on the scale of time many top Swiss watch brands have existed). That blurs the boundaries. But it's emotional, because these are symbols of wealth even to enthusiasts and nobody wants their self-worth invalidated (nor is it morally acceptable, at least in most places relevant on WUS, for those of greater means to do so).
> 
> When I look at JLC, though, I see a level of finish and decoration above Zenith (and well above Rolex). I see classic bridge designs, anglage, decouverture, and other signs of finissage beyond the perlage and cotes de Geneve available on common top-grade ETA movements. So, they are higher end than Zenith and Rolex, and feature-for-feature they fetch a higher price.
> 
> But it's a continuum, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Either it has to be drawn by the moderators ("Right or wrong, only discussions of ________ brands are allowed in the High-End Forum"), by argument, or by vote.
> 
> Given the watches announced in this forum, and the silence of the mods on this topic, I sense they are unwilling to draw the line (and I don't blame them). And voting has that unhappy outcome of relegating some viewpoints to minority status. But argument isn't working, either. There is much more traffic on this forum about defining "high end" than there is about watches not subject to dispute.
> 
> Polling is no less arbitrary than any other hard line, and it is at least a little democratic. In the subject of JLC, the poll results are not marginal, despite the vocal minority.
> 
> Rick "just repeating the bleeding obvious" Denney


I always enjoy your posts, Rick.

Ric


----------



## seanwontreturn

Rdenney said:


> When I look at JLC, though, I see a level of finish and decoration above Zenith (and well above Rolex).


Assuming you are talking about movement finish, JLC is totally unacceptable in the high end world, yes i am including its perpetual and tourbillon pieces. you check its back you know what i mean. JLC is completely humiliated in this regard by GP, a brand that asks similar prices but is normally viewed as overpricing. And how can you invite Zenith and Rolex into the talk of high end?

If the finish you said also includes case, then i say Rolex edges JLC out for sure.

I can tell you JLC is nothing more than a team of movement enginreering(cant say maker as make involves decorate ).


----------



## tony20009

seanwontreturn said:


> Assuming you are talking about movement finish, JLC is totally unacceptable in the high end world, yes i am including its perpetual and tourbillon pieces. you check its back you know what i mean. JLC is completely humiliated in this regard by GP, a brand that asks similar prices but is normally viewed as overpricing. And how can you invite Zenith and Rolex into the talk of high end?
> 
> If the finish you said also includes case, then i say Rolex edges JLC out for sure.
> 
> I can tell you JLC is nothing more than a team of movement enginreering(cant say maker as make involves decorate ).


Out of curiosity, with regard to some or other specific prep cal and/or tourbillion JLC movement(s), what exactly do you think they should do to them?

All the best.


----------



## Rdenney

seanwontreturn said:


> ...And how can you invite Zenith and Rolex into the talk of high end?
> 
> If the finish you said also includes case, then i say Rolex edges JLC out for sure.
> 
> I can tell you JLC is nothing more than a team of movement enginreering(cant say maker as make involves decorate ).


I specifically excluded Rolex and Zenith from the high end.

But if you want to grind your axe, be my guest.

Rick "assertions are not persuasive" Denney


----------



## shartouh

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*



tomatoes said:


> So....that makes Audemars Piguet...mid tier too! Right??


Audemars Piguet has allways problems with resell couse the service for second hand Ap is expencive and not easy to make service in Ap Store ro to send it to Ap Company


----------



## MattHofstadt

seanwontreturn said:


> Assuming you are talking about movement finish, *JLC is totally unacceptable in the high end world*, yes i am including its perpetual and tourbillon pieces. you check its back you know what i mean. *JLC is completely humiliated in this regard by GP*, a brand that asks similar prices but is normally viewed as overpricing. And how can you invite Zenith and Rolex into the talk of high end?
> 
> If the finish you said also includes case, then i say *Rolex edges JLC out for sure*.
> 
> I can tell you *JLC is nothing more than a team of movement enginreering(cant say maker as make involves decorate )*.


This is a troll post, right? JLC does makes phenomenal movements, and while I would agree that they are _known_ for their impressive movements, I wouldn't call them an engineering company. IWC, on the other hand, is a company well known for their engineering, and this is reflecting in the somewhat utilitarian finish seen on many of their movements. JLC doesn't produce anything not impeccably ornamented with smooth anglage, brilliant Genève striping, and perfectly spaced pearlage.


----------



## dsmcastro

I think they are, and not only with their grand complications... The same goes for Zenith with the Academy watches, but the El Primero too, great finishes and beautiful pieces.


----------



## shnjb

Although that was a trollish post, the movement finishing in many JLC movements does indeed look utilitarian to my untrained eyes.



MattHofstadt said:


> This is a troll post, right? JLC does makes phenomenal movements, and while I would agree that they are _known_ for their impressive movements, I wouldn't call them an engineering company. IWC, on the other hand, is a company well known for their engineering, and this is reflecting in the somewhat utilitarian finish seen on many of their movements. JLC doesn't produce anything not impeccably ornamented with smooth anglage, brilliant Genève striping, and perfectly spaced pearlage.


----------



## MattHofstadt

shnjb said:


> Although that was a trollish post, the movement finishing in many JLC movements does indeed look utilitarian to my untrained eyes.


When comparing with Patek, Vacheron, Piaget, etc, JLC's movements aren't generally as nicely ornamented. But, in my humble opinion, it's still difficult to describe JLC movements as utilitarian in the same way an IWC movement tends to be.


----------



## gagnello

shnjb said:


> Although that was a trollish post, the movement finishing in many JLC movements does indeed look utilitarian to my untrained eyes.


Utilitarian or no, JLC's reputation as perhaps the finest movement maker in the world speaks for itself imo. They don't need to decorate their movements to the nines for me to know what they represent. My 2 cents.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk


----------



## AbuKalb93

dsmcastro said:


> I think they are, and not only with their grand complications... The same goes for Zenith with the Academy watches, but the El Primero too, great finishes and beautiful pieces.


I won an El Primero and i must say, its sure a bang for the buck in terms of horology.


----------



## systemcrasher

hmmm for those that regard JLC not a high end brand due to the movement decoration - or lack of, then you must also think brands like Parmigiani, Audemars Piguet, Richard Mile pretty ordinary too? Their watches may show countless parts through dial or the back casing, but these companies do not *decorate* all their movements as much as Patek or Lange would. Especially AP, if you discount their logo-embossed rotor, most of their movements don't have much decoration at all - unless you talking about some of their Jules Audemars or Tourbillon models...

Hell, even F.P. Journe Chromometre Double Resonance has movement that looks pretty simple with limited decoration that can be seen through the back.. I guess this 50k watch isn't really high end either


----------



## AbuKalb93

systemcrasher said:


> hmmm for those that regard JLC not a high end brand due to the movement decoration - or lack of, then you must also think brands like Parmigiani, Audemars Piguet, Richard Mile pretty ordinary too? Their watches may show countless parts through dial or the back casing, but these companies do not *decorate* all their movements as much as Patek or Lange would. Especially AP, if you discount their logo-embossed rotor, most of their movements don't have much decoration at all - unless you talking about some of their Jules Audemars or Tourbillon models...
> 
> Hell, even F.P. Journe Chromometre Double Resonance has movement that looks pretty simple with limited decoration that can be seen through the back.. I guess this 50k watch isn't really high end either


Have you seen the Tonda 1950?? Considering the entry level RO, that is pure finishing even behind the rotor. Look at all the polishing and chamfering on it! 
I will intentionally ignore your FPJ reference as I have a feeling you purposely put it there to give me a good kick...


----------



## systemcrasher

rofl! how did i know that mentioning that watch would attract your comment! XD 

And yep, I actually wanted to buy that Tonda while I was in Korea... But in South Korea, you have to make an appointment with Parmigiani to look at their watches... That was end of that 

But regarding RO or ROO... i still don't think their movement decoration is nicer than similarly priced PP and miles behind ALS. But like I said, some Jules Audemars or some of their tourbillon movements are very nicely decorated and they automatically causes me to drool.


----------



## AbuKalb93

systemcrasher said:


> rofl! how did i know that mentioning that watch would attract your comment! XD
> 
> And yep, I actually wanted to buy that Tonda while I was in Korea... But in South Korea, you have to make an appointment with Parmigiani to look at their watches... That was end of that
> 
> But regarding RO or ROO... i still don't think their movement decoration is nicer than similarly priced PP and miles behind ALS. But like I said, some Jules Audemars or some of their tourbillon movements are very nicely decorated and they automatically causes me to drool.


PP is miles behind ALS, in my opinion and the RO is a tiny tad bit behind PP but nevertheless it is very well finished. I think the problem is that rotor. After getting my first manual i kind of noticed how much more pleasing it is than an auto. The amount of times i try to look at a movement and have a rotor shoved in my face is too much to count.


----------



## systemcrasher

haha awesome. This is why i like this forum, the diversity of opinions. I actually think the rotor is great - especially in 22k gold XD. I personally think the rotor finish is great and love looking at their emblems spin around lol.


Just on a side note, my VC has pretty ordinary movement decoration as well. No wonder they hid it from the world.


----------



## shnjb

systemcrasher said:


> rofl! how did i know that mentioning that watch would attract your comment! XD
> 
> And yep, I actually wanted to buy that Tonda while I was in Korea... But in South Korea, you have to make an appointment with Parmigiani to look at their watches... That was end of that
> 
> But regarding RO or ROO... i still don't think their movement decoration is nicer than similarly priced PP and miles behind ALS. But like I said, some Jules Audemars or some of their tourbillon movements are very nicely decorated and they automatically causes me to drool.


LOL Parmigiani.
I doubt anyone in korea wants a parmigiani anyway.


----------



## AbuKalb93

systemcrasher said:


> haha awesome. This is why i like this forum, the diversity of opinions. I actually think the rotor is great - especially in 22k gold XD. I personally think the rotor finish is great and love looking at their emblems spin around lol.
> 
> Just on a side note, my VC has pretty ordinary movement decoration as well. No wonder they hid it from the world.


It is a great looking rotor and thats the thing, you cant have both. Either you have a very large rotor that blocks the movement or a tiny one that keeps you asking for more.

Your VC has a modified Blancpain (f.piguet) movement which explains why it is not on par (in terms of finish) with some of the other VC movements. Further, whereas i understand that to be the main reason for having a solid caseback, VC uses the antimagnetism as their excuse. I find that a nicer gesture than AP who just uses the solid caseback and doesnt make an effort to justify that choice.


----------



## systemcrasher

Yeah as far as the finish of movement is concerned, Overseas isn't a very good example. But I used it as an example to show that a watch that with less decoration doesn't necessarily mean that it's not high-end piece.

If comparing to a computer, I almost think movement decoration is like the Retina display on Macs. Sure they look sharp and nice, but at the end of the day, people buy these machines for what it can do, not how it makes the desktop or a DVD or a movie clip look better. People wouldn't consider Macs high end personal computers if it had Retina display with internals of, I dunno, Commodore 64.

But the new Mac Pros will be considered high end personal computer even if it came in a foam box without Retina/Cinema display as it is still computing engineering at it's best and it will still render videos, 3D scenes at a blistering speeds so on and on in a foam box without Retina display. Hope this explains my view a little clearer.


----------



## DolleDolf

*Re: Poll: Jaeger leCoultre; High End or Not?*

Are JLC a high end manufacture? Of course they are. Their reputation as "the watchmakers watch" precedes them, and is entirely deserved. Yet they do miss out on being right up there in the true highest end manufacturers, the exotics, far out of reach of said watchmakers.

To state that they are not high end is, to me, as irrelevant as stating that Mercedes Benz are not a high end car manufacturer because some of their cars are dross. Or to state that VW are a high end car maker because they make the Phaeton. VW make good low and mid range cars.

When you put a xx dollar JLC on your wrist you know you trump just about everything else out there for the price, including watches twice the price or more. But you also know you are not truly king of the hill. Which is fine. It just makes much more sense. Just like a Benz makes a lot more sense for most people than a Rolls Royce or a Bentley.

I like the 100-99-99-95 idea a few pages back, th JLC being the 95. Which is where it seems most people see the brand. And that is probably where the dispute lies. I would consider anything over 90 high end, but if you draw the line at 98 or 97 JLC may just fall short in the eyes of some. I personally find that POV not a generous one.


----------



## mpalmer

hvgotcodes said:


> Isn't there absolute no doubt that JLC has watches in its lineup that are high end? Look no farther than the recent HM 11 - an absolute tour de force of horological mastery.
> 
> The problem with this question is how to deal with the fact that JLC has offering like the plain ole Master Control. A fine watch to be sure, made by a titan of the industry, but admittedly lacking in the finishing department (comparatively speaking). As well as the price department, as that seems to be all some people consider when considering whether something is high end.
> 
> I think the reasonable answer is "JLC has some watches that are high end by any measure, and also has timepieces that are respectable but don't match up with equivalent high end pieces (like MV vs Calatrava).


While on one hand, I agree with this sort of analysis, I think it is often applied situationally against brands that cost less, rather of objectively based on quality of workmanship.

For example, before deciding to order my RGM, I considered the Patek Aquanaut. The Aquanaut is a great looking versatile watch. The problem was I didn't see anything exceptional about it, other than the name on the dial. I felt I got a lot more exceptionality from RGM in terms of rose engine turned guilloche dial finishing, movement finishing, hand crafted construction, etc. I felt for the outlay involved, I deserved to get something exceptional.

My point is, by your argument (and that made by many others), wouldn't it be true that even the vaunted Patek Philippe has some watches that might not be high end??


----------



## DolleDolf

> wouldn't it be true that even the vaunted Patek Philippe has some watches that might not be high end??


There will be 5 Michelin star restaurants out there were not every item in the menu will be to die for. Hiigh end clothing and shoe stores have economy lines, even ones that they channel to discount malls. High end car manufacturers will have economy and sometimes even "stripped' models.

Sometimes you do, indeed, pay for the badge. It is up to the informed consumer to get the price/what you get for your money balance tipped in your favour.

A plain Reverso without even a second hand may not be everybody's cup of tea regarding a "high end' watch. Another person may be satisfied that the finish, the coolness of the Reverso gimmick, the "JLC" branding, the cachet of the brand, will be satisfactory enough for the person who either can't afford or feels does not need a complication or three, or the ego-massage of a truly "out there" product.

In my eyes, on a planet where 99.99% of people wear a cheap quartz watch, just about all the watches discussed here are high end. Including the more ubiquitous brands like Rolex and Omega, the Breitlings and the Zeniths.

Not the Hublots though. Paying way too much to these awful "ambassadors." Putting these watches on already way overpaid football managers and rappers immediately take them down a few steps off the high-end ladder for me.


----------



## hvgotcodes

mpalmer said:


> While on one hand, I agree with this sort of analysis, I think it is often applied situationally against brands that cost less, rather of objectively based on quality of workmanship.
> 
> For example, before deciding to order my RGM, I considered the Patek Aquanaut. The Aquanaut is a great looking versatile watch. The problem was I didn't see anything exceptional about it, other than the name on the dial. I felt I got a lot more exceptionality from RGM in terms of rose engine turned guilloche dial finishing, movement finishing, hand crafted construction, etc. I felt for the outlay involved, I deserved to get something exceptional.
> 
> My point is, by your argument (and that made by many others), wouldn't it be true that even the vaunted Patek Philippe has some watches that might not be high end??


I definitely think its possible for a brand like Patek, which is normally beyond reproach, to put out a timepiece which might be substandard either by the standards of the manufacture or when compared to other pieces in its class.

Which only speaks to my point. If an undoubtedly high end brand like Patek can have some watches that are not at the pinnacle of their class, then why can't JLC, which has just a rich a history, some pieces that are the epitome of haute horlogerie, also get by as a high end brand with pieces like the "plain ole" MC?


----------



## plastique999

Does JLC have one of the most diversified line of watches? Perhaps that is the double-edged sword. Appealing affordable to the masses with $5k range pieces, but able to exquisitely produce a 5 figure mastery has to demand some respect. 


Sent from my 16M


----------



## fargo

Not to specifically discuss JLC, but I recently saw a lot of polls on HEW board on "is XYZ high end?". I think an earlier factoid posted on WUS tells a lot of things about this as it is based on some data on number of employees and number of watches made in a year. This is the thread I am talking about:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/watch-manufacturer-production-volumes-804639.html

According to this thread, you can see how much craftsmanship is going into each brand. No wonder ALS is on top, as they assemble each watch twice. If they didn't have that procedure, they would've been more at the level of GO-VC. I think anything with less than 100 number seems high end to me, so this includes ALS, PP, VC, GO, Breguet, AP, JLC and maybe borderline IWC.

This thread was also one of the inputs (among many others and personal preferences) for my decision to purchase a GO watch over JLC, IWC, Zenith. When you see and live through their pieces, you can see how much craftsmanship is spent on each and every one of the pieces, including their so-called entry level stainless steel versions. I see a lot of GO bashing throughout the HEW threads and I think there are three reasons for that: 1) Fictionary ALS shadow 2) Lack of heavy marketing 3) Not many ambassadors (average Joe as well as celebrities alike) as they sell only a few thousand watches a year.

Manufacturer Watches per person per year
A. Lange & Sohne 11
H. Moser & Cie 21
Glashutte Original 29
Vacheron Constantin 29
Dornbluth 30
Audemar Piguet 33
Patek Philippe 33
Bregeut 50
JLC 50
Damasko 57
Genesis 90
IWC 100
Sinn 125
Zenith 125
Seiko 133
Rolex 167
Stowa 250
Panerai 300
Maurice Lacroix 360
Fortis 667
Longines 1000
Frederique Constant 1200
Tag Heuer 1500
Bell & Ross 1800
Tissot 8333


----------



## Rdenney

To some extent, those statistics may be a reflection of production demand versus capacity built according to a business plan. It will be interesting to see if those ratios hold true as demand and production change. 

Of course, any particularly boundary in those statistics will be arbitrary, but that's the reason for the polls. The watches define the boundary, not the other way around. 

Personally, I am extremely impressed by the GO watches I've seen, though I'm not really a fan of the German 3/4-plate bridge design. 

Rick "a big fan of the Swiss 4- and 5-bridge designs" Denney


----------



## seanwontreturn

fargo said:


> Not to specifically discuss JLC, but I recently saw a lot of polls on HEW board on "is XYZ high end?". I think an earlier factoid posted on WUS tells a lot of things about this as it is based on some data on number of employees and number of watches made in a year. This is the thread I am talking about:
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/watch-manufacturer-production-volumes-804639.html
> 
> According to this thread, you can see how much craftsmanship is going into each brand. No wonder ALS is on top, as they assemble each watch twice. If they didn't have that procedure, they would've been more at the level of GO-VC. I think anything with less than 100 number seems high end to me, so this includes ALS, PP, VC, GO, Breguet, AP, JLC and maybe borderline IWC.
> 
> This thread was also one of the inputs (among many others and personal preferences) for my decision to purchase a GO watch over JLC, IWC, Zenith. When you see and live through their pieces, you can see how much craftsmanship is spent on each and every one of the pieces, including their so-called entry level stainless steel versions. I see a lot of GO bashing throughout the HEW threads and I think there are three reasons for that: 1) Fictionary ALS shadow 2) Lack of heavy marketing 3) Not many ambassadors (average Joe as well as celebrities alike) as they sell only a few thousand watches a year.
> 
> Manufacturer Watches per person per year
> A. Lange & Sohne 11
> H. Moser & Cie 21
> Glashutte Original 29
> Vacheron Constantin 29
> Dornbluth 30
> Audemar Piguet 33
> Patek Philippe 33
> Bregeut 50
> JLC 50
> Damasko 57
> Genesis 90
> IWC 100
> Sinn 125
> Zenith 125
> Seiko 133
> Rolex 167
> Stowa 250
> Panerai 300
> Maurice Lacroix 360
> Fortis 667
> Longines 1000
> Frederique Constant 1200
> Tag Heuer 1500
> Bell & Ross 1800
> Tissot 8333


Employee number is not the number of people hired to work on watches.


----------



## GlidingSweep

I love what JLC is about - history, innovation, engineering, understated elegance etc - more than most other watchmakers. I think it is certainly "high-end" BUT it has a branding problem. I wish they would play up 3 things: 
1) Their history - beyond the Reverso and pretentious Polo players. Instead, they should play up their history in movements much more (down to nuts and bolts, literally).
2) Talk, publish, write, scream about innovative techniques in their movements (Rolex does a fantastic job with this on their site) even if its not exclusive to them - free sprung balance, ceramic bearings, silicon escapement, nerdy details about the 1000 hours test (videos etc.). - get super nerdy.
3) Publish and guarantee accuracy & precision of all watches that pass the 1000 hours test, a la GO Cal 36.

and maybe 4) stop hiring mainstream actors as "ambassadors" - maybe hire scientists, inventors, humanitarians, painters, sculptors, innovative filmmakers etc - go back to that nerdy, "roll up our sleeves" DNA. Nothing against actors (Cumberbatch does a fine job), but they won't be congruent with points 1-3.


----------



## GrouchoM

> 3) Publish and guarantee accuracy & precision of all watches that pass the 1000 hours test, a la GO Cal 36.


At least in my case, their 1000 hours didn't yield an accurate not well functioning timepiece despite many of their attempts.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Zach1

I really like JLC, and many of them are actually above my price range, but I neither consider them particularly high-end nor understand why people keep playing up the “watchmakers’s watch” thing regardless of the history. Most are machine finished, and many seem to have various technical issues. When given the choice, I went with a simple Lange Saxonia over a Chrono Calendar (although I may one day buy a reverso).


----------

