# Fossil rusted in less than a year.



## choen (Sep 1, 2010)

Fossil don't make watches, they make bracelets with a timekeeping function, meant to be disposed off after a season.

Bought this in 30 March 2010. Today is 23 November 2010. Never swam with it ever.

"This warranty does not cover
-Any defects in materials and workmanship of battery, case, crystal, strap or bracelet
-Damage resulting from improper handling, lack of care, accidents or normal wear and tear
-Water damage unless marked water-resistant."


----------



## joe montana (Sep 20, 2010)

Fossil is %^&*&*!!!!  had one myself!


----------



## choen (Sep 1, 2010)

haha! Is it even stainless steel?


----------



## choen (Sep 1, 2010)

Update:

The Fossil outlet almost refused to take the watch back for warranty claim because 'the warranty does not cover the case'. 

I pointed out that if it's stainless steel, why is it rusting? The shop replied that they will take it back an...d send it back to the distributor for a look but nothing more, and it'll take a month.

They suck.


----------



## systema (Jul 16, 2010)

I wonder if it is some form of galvanic corrosion which occurs at the contact surfaces between 2 different types of metal. See here for details -Galvanic corrosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This can still happen even if both the case and the case back are made of stainless steel, if the stainless steel that Fossil used for the case is of a different grade when compared to the case back.


----------



## DragonAce (Sep 13, 2010)

mine is 6 years old and looks new, for 5 years was on my wrist day night (even when i was a soldier)...no problem, well built and out of mind the rust...sorry man for your watch, bad things happens


----------



## choen (Sep 1, 2010)

DragonAce: I am guessing that the quality has dropped in more recent offerings. 

My wife's Adidas digital (made by fossil of course), bought in August, also had a corroded case back after 6 weeks. She only used it for yoga classes.

systema: That could very well be one of the possibilities.


----------



## Ironhead66 (Dec 16, 2010)

My wife (then girlfriend) bought me a Fossil Blue (digital/analog) diver 10 years ago. As with many women she didn't know anything about watches, other than that it looked cool so I'm sure she way overpaid for it. Either way I wore it as my daily beater (desk job) for 5-6 years - and let's say it didn't wear that well. The finish wore off the case from wear my wrist rubbed it (it's a light brown color underneath the "silver"), the crystal scratched like crazy, it got gouges in the bezel, the bracelet is all loose and dinged up, and for awhile there was a fog under the crystal. That's the first and last Fossil I'll own, unless someone who doesn't know me well gives me one as a gift... LOL I didn't notice any rust though, mostly because I think the only real "metal" part of it was the caseback.


----------



## choen (Sep 1, 2010)

ironhead: light brown underneath silver? Sounds like a sort of galvanized 'steel' rather than true solid stainless steel. Zinc over copper or something like that.


----------



## Kabong30 (Jan 24, 2010)

Just a quick note folks. Call Customer Care if you need warranty issues addressed. The folks at the stores are there to sell items not necessarily take them back. To be fair they are considered "fashion" watches and are not meant to beaten on. You get yourself a G-Shock for that.


----------



## Ironhead66 (Dec 16, 2010)

choen said:


> ironhead: light brown underneath silver? Sounds like a sort of galvanized 'steel' rather than true solid stainless steel. Zinc over copper or something like that.


Yeah - I'll try to take a picture of it if I can dig it up. And no, I don't think it was stainless steel (maybe the bracelet, but definitely not the case).


----------



## wakitasan (Jan 5, 2011)

I guess thats why its called Fossil


----------



## pyjujiop (Dec 7, 2009)

choen said:


> DragonAce: I am guessing that the quality has dropped in more recent offerings.
> 
> My wife's Adidas digital (made by fossil of course), bought in August, also had a corroded case back after 6 weeks. She only used it for yoga classes.
> 
> systema: That could very well be one of the possibilities.


 Methinks that Fossil is probably sourcing cases from a Chinese manufacturer who is offering "stainless steel" cases that really aren't.


----------



## bry1975 (Aug 28, 2006)

Fyi Fossil do use China produced cases for certain models.

Bry


----------



## myemailsea (Jan 6, 2012)

I have noticed that Fossil products tend to be on the cheaper side of things. Unfortunately they manufacture watches for other labels that include Burberry amongst others. If you like the watch, buy another Fossil, they aren't much money and maybe even swim in it because its not a lifetime investment.


----------



## J.D.B. (Oct 12, 2009)

Interesting. I have several going back to '94 and none have rusted. I have had to clean them, though. I wonder if that was actually rust or just grime? Did you try to clean it up with soapy water and a small brush?

Josh


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Fossil is crap in my opinion.


----------



## nectarios73 (Jul 26, 2010)

rust is good.it add character to the watch


----------



## stratct (Jun 17, 2010)

choen said:


> Fossil don't make watches, they make bracelets with a timekeeping function, meant to be disposed off after a season.
> 
> Bought this in 30 March 2010. Today is 23 November 2010. Never swam with it ever.
> 
> ...


Haha. True dat!


----------



## baronrojo (Jul 14, 2010)

Weird...Fossil makes OK watches for what they cost. I've seen some that are close to 20 years old in pretty good shape. Maybe a bad day at the factory??


----------



## KHaskus (Feb 21, 2012)

gagnello said:


> Fossil is crap in my opinion.


Boo Yah! Exactly.. They are not exactly known for their precision craftsmanship. If you can buy one for $30 at walmart.. you can only expect to get what you pay for? no?

I mean I have seen a few that Look nice but I have also seen $15.00 watches that LOOK nice, that does not mean they function well or will have any sort of lifespan..

-KH


----------



## KHaskus (Feb 21, 2012)

Johncena1 said:


> I think, Fossil rusted have a good original structural colors reconstructed in fossil moths had a dual and have a good quality.


What?!?!

-KH


----------



## teko ajaib (Aug 10, 2012)

i have 2 fossil watches, 
eerrr i thought they aren't categorized as fashion watches, 
but i think i'm wrong 


actually, i like these watches


----------



## Drop of a Hat (Dec 16, 2011)

After reading the OP, what exactly does the warranty ACTUALLY cover? 

Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## watchma (Jul 11, 2012)

choen said:


> "This warranty does not cover
> -Any defects in materials and workmanship of battery, case, crystal, strap or bracelet












(same as drop of a hat mentions) ...... What ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

And for the record stainless steel isn't guaranteed not to corrode , poor quality SS can and will corrode.


----------



## iamblamb (Dec 4, 2011)

So I got my first watch when I was 11 and it was a fossil. It was a fossil blue chronograph TI-5011. This was the watch I was wearing when I got hit by a silverado while on my bicycle, it was also the one I was wearing when I shredded the extensor tendons in my left arm. It is solid titanium and other than needing a cleaning and buffing, it runs perfectly today. I'm sure the movement is quartz though...


----------



## dorianinside (Nov 15, 2007)

rust at fossil?
my friend has this watch for less than a year.


----------



## Reinhardt (Sep 19, 2012)

Fossil is a fashion brand and like many other fashion brands only the movement is under guarantee. I have an Idea they have a Japanese Quartz motv, I have an Idea that they are cased in china and that may be part of the problem. But I've never seen a rusted Fossil what comes to mind is how often does your friend get in contact with sea water and does he fresh rinse afterwards? If not as we all know salt water will highly increase the chance of corrosion even on stainless steel.

Sent from my CrackBerry 9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Look sharp (Dec 11, 2013)

I had to register so I could comment. I have been a lurker here for a while reading up and learning about watches and I must say...there are a lot of people on here who think their .... doesn't stink and need to get off their high horse. 

Yes..Fossil isn't Breitling or Movado or Omega....but that is like comparing apples and oranges. Lamborghini makes great cars but guess what? So does Ford or Honda. I own a Movado and I love it but I do also own a Fossil and it has been great. I have had it for almost 3 years and there is NO rust at all anywhere on the watch. Also, regarding the warranty...all of your information is flawed. Fossil has one of the best warranties in the business. I believe its up to 10 years (it could be 7) but they will replace and fix anything. I just had the crystal and stem/crown replaced (due to my fault and not the quality of the watch) for 40 bucks and half of that was shipping. 

I am not saying they are the greatest watch company on the market but some of you need to come back down to Earth.


----------



## Isop (Jan 12, 2013)

Look sharp said:


> I had to register so I could comment. I have been a lurker here for a while reading up and learning about watches and I must say...there are a lot of people on here who think their .... doesn't stink and need to get off their high horse.
> 
> Yes..Fossil isn't Breitling or Movado or Omega....but that is like comparing apples and oranges. Lamborghini makes great cars but guess what? So does Ford or Honda. I own a Movado and I love it but I do also own a Fossil and it has been great. I have had it for almost 3 years and there is NO rust at all anywhere on the watch. Also, regarding the warranty...all of your information is flawed. Fossil has one of the best warranties in the business. I believe its up to 10 years (it could be 7) but they will replace and fix anything. I just had the crystal and stem/crown replaced (due to my fault and not the quality of the watch) for 40 bucks and half of that was shipping.
> 
> I am not saying they are the greatest watch company on the market but some of you need to come back down to Earth.


I agree, some of the stuff posted was just not true.. First Fossil isn't sold at Wal-Mart, not that it matters, but a lie is a lie is a lie. I've got a Fossil blue that I've had since 2002 and I've worn it in the lake and pool many times and there is not rust any where on it. As others have said, could it have been salt causing the rust from the ocean?

As far as their warranty "The hands, dial, and watch movement are the only components covered under the warranty. If the watch proves to be defective in material or workmanship under normal use, it will be repaired or replaced free of charge at the discretion of Metro Service Center."

It's also a 11 year warranty, I don't have the money to own a Rolex, or Breitling or one of many other high dollar watches, but what do their warranties cover and for how long? Lifespan and precision? Well so far 12 years on my, 1 crystal change and 3 battery changes and it doesn't lose or gain a second, but is spot on every day, every day, every month, every year. Of course it's a quartz, but some one above questioned their precision and lifespan so he gets an answer.

Fashion or not, they work and they work for a good long while and you can beat the hell out of them and they keep working, or at least the 3 I own and the 2 my wife owns does. My 12 year old one was $65 when my wife purchased it for me. I don't own anything else that cost that and is still working 12 year later. My computer cost way more and died long ago, my TV 12 years ago was half the size of my current one, weighed 5 times as much and stopped working 3 years ago. My newest one is less than a year old and if it last any where near as long then I will consider that a well spent $95.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

Isop said:


> I agree, some of the stuff posted was just not true.. First Fossil isn't sold at Wal-Mart, not that it matters, but a lie is a lie is a lie. I've got a Fossil blue that I've had since 2002 and I've worn it in the lake and pool many times and there is not rust any where on it. As others have said, could it have been salt causing the rust from the ocean?
> 
> As far as their warranty "The hands, dial, and watch movement are the only components covered under the warranty. If the watch proves to be defective in material or workmanship under normal use, it will be repaired or replaced free of charge at the discretion of Metro Service Center."
> 
> ...


Yes, but why not buy a real watch if you have 50 dollars? Seiko 5. Vostok amphibian. Orient mako (a bit more but you get the point). There is no reason to buy a fossil when you can get something respectable for the same money. You can even get a Timex for like 20 dollars.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

I have a Fossil wallet. 3 years and going strong. Don't have experience with their watches though.


----------



## natnaes (Apr 15, 2012)

gagnello said:


> Yes, but why not buy a real watch if you have 50 dollars? Seiko 5. Vostok amphibian. Orient mako (a bit more but you get the point). There is no reason to buy a fossil when you can get something respectable for the same money. You can even get a Timex for like 20 dollars.
> 
> Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


I'd like to see you explain how any of those watches are more "real" than a fossil. Especially taking into consideration fossil movements are Citizen Miyota.


----------



## twiceaday (Nov 15, 2013)

iamblamb said:


> So I got my first watch when I was 11 and it was a fossil. *It was a fossil blue chronograph TI-5011. This was the watch I was wearing when I got hit by a silverado while on my bicycle, it was also the one I was wearing when I shredded the extensor tendons in my left arm*. It is solid titanium and other than needing a cleaning and buffing, it runs perfectly today. I'm sure the movement is quartz though...
> View attachment 795560


Sounds like that watch is bad luck to me.


----------



## ecthelion (Jun 4, 2011)

natnaes said:


> I'd like to see you explain how any of those watches are more "real" than a fossil. Especially taking into consideration fossil movements are Citizen Miyota.


I think everyone is missing the point here - Fossil makes nice-looking watches (and as many testify they can take a beating as well), but none of the innards, i.e. what really makes a watch tick, are designed in-house by Fossil; it's all sourced from someone else. The movement inside a Seiko 5 was designed at Seiko and is manufactured by Seiko. The movements inside Vostok watches are designed by Vostok and manufactured by Vostok. And so on. In terms of horology, the level of class associated with a watch is heavily dependent on its perceived origin and whether or not it uses an in-house (i.e. designed by the same company that distributes and manufactures the rest of the watch) movement. (Exceptions are made for watches that use ébauche movements from ETA/Valjoux and Ronda, as these are the last remnants of large-scale movement manufacturing in the Swiss watch industry, and many high-quality watches use movements from one of these two manufacturers; ETA in particular, as part of the Swatch Group, absorbed a large number of watch movement manufacturers in the wake of the Quartz Revolution.) In Fossil's case, on both counts it falls short, and this is why some people feel like they can say negative things about the company and its products, and just be snobbish in general.

In the minds of many snobs, there is something amiss about fashion watches (personally I'm not sure that Fossil fits in that category because the watches made under its name are not licensed out to some other company, as is the case for many other watches with fashion labels such as Michael Kors and Nautica). Most fashion watches only bear the name of the label and have no other relationship to that company; the brands do not design "the heart and soul" of the watches that bear their name, nor do they put much expenditure on their manufacture (such that the brands are not perceived to put the kind of care into these watches as they put into other aspects of their business) - their name and design is merely licensed out to some third party watch manufacturer who then mass-produces these watches (sometimes with questionable quality) which are then sold at exorbitantly (horologically-speaking, unjustified) prices simply because they bear the name of and some design elements from a fashion label.

It's not necessarily getting on some high horse - but you don't expect quality medical advice from your attorney (unless he/she also holds a medical degree), or sound legal advice from your physician (unless he/she is also an attorney). Just so, many watch enthusiasts don't expect high-quality watches from brands whose area of expertise is in some other aspect of fashion.


----------



## gagnello (Nov 19, 2011)

ecthelion said:


> I think everyone is missing the point here - Fossil makes nice-looking watches (and as many testify they can take a beating as well), but none of the innards, i.e. what really makes a watch tick, are designed in-house by Fossil; it's all sourced from someone else. The movement inside a Seiko 5 was designed at Seiko and is manufactured by Seiko. The movements inside Vostok watches are designed by Vostok and manufactured by Vostok. And so on. In terms of horology, the level of class associated with a watch is heavily dependent on its perceived origin and whether or not it uses an in-house (i.e. designed by the same company that distributes and manufactures the rest of the watch) movement. (Exceptions are made for watches that use ébauche movements from ETA/Valjoux and Ronda, as these are the last remnants of large-scale movement manufacturing in the Swiss watch industry, and many high-quality watches use movements from one of these two manufacturers; ETA in particular, as part of the Swatch Group, absorbed a large number of watch movement manufacturers in the wake of the Quartz Revolution.) In Fossil's case, on both counts it falls short, and this is why some people feel like they can say negative things about the company and its products, and just be snobbish in general.
> 
> In the minds of many snobs, there is something amiss about fashion watches (personally I'm not sure that Fossil fits in that category because the watches made under its name are not licensed out to some other company, as is the case for many other watches with fashion labels such as Michael Kors and Nautica). Most fashion watches only bear the name of the label and have no other relationship to that company; the brands do not design "the heart and soul" of the watches that bear their name, nor do they put much expenditure on their manufacture (such that the brands are not perceived to put the kind of care into these watches as they put into other aspects of their business) - their name and design is merely licensed out to some third party watch manufacturer who then mass-produces these watches (sometimes with questionable quality) which are then sold at exorbitantly (horologically-speaking, unjustified) prices simply because they bear the name of and some design elements from a fashion label.
> 
> It's not necessarily getting on some high horse - but you don't expect quality medical advice from your attorney (unless he/she also holds a medical degree), or sound legal advice from your physician (unless he/she is also an attorney). Just so, many watch enthusiasts don't expect high-quality watches from brands whose area of expertise is in some other aspect of fashion.


Well said.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Isop (Jan 12, 2013)

ecthelion said:


> I think everyone is missing the point here - Fossil makes nice-looking watches (and as many testify they can take a beating as well), but none of the innards, i.e. what really makes a watch tick, are designed in-house by Fossil; it's all sourced from someone else. The movement inside a Seiko 5 was designed at Seiko and is manufactured by Seiko. The movements inside Vostok watches are designed by Vostok and manufactured by Vostok. And so on. In terms of horology, the level of class associated with a watch is heavily dependent on its perceived origin and whether or not it uses an in-house (i.e. designed by the same company that distributes and manufactures the rest of the watch) movement. (Exceptions are made for watches that use ébauche movements from ETA/Valjoux and Ronda, as these are the last remnants of large-scale movement manufacturing in the Swiss watch industry, and many high-quality watches use movements from one of these two manufacturers; ETA in particular, as part of the Swatch Group, absorbed a large number of watch movement manufacturers in the wake of the Quartz Revolution.) In Fossil's case, on both counts it falls short, and this is why some people feel like they can say negative things about the company and its products, and just be snobbish in general.
> 
> In the minds of many snobs, there is something amiss about fashion watches (personally I'm not sure that Fossil fits in that category because the watches made under its name are not licensed out to some other company, as is the case for many other watches with fashion labels such as Michael Kors and Nautica). Most fashion watches only bear the name of the label and have no other relationship to that company; the brands do not design "the heart and soul" of the watches that bear their name, nor do they put much expenditure on their manufacture (such that the brands are not perceived to put the kind of care into these watches as they put into other aspects of their business) - their name and design is merely licensed out to some third party watch manufacturer who then mass-produces these watches (sometimes with questionable quality) which are then sold at exorbitantly (horologically-speaking, unjustified) prices simply because they bear the name of and some design elements from a fashion label.
> 
> It's not necessarily getting on some high horse - but you don't expect quality medical advice from your attorney (unless he/she also holds a medical degree), or sound legal advice from your physician (unless he/she is also an attorney). Just so, many watch enthusiasts don't expect high-quality watches from brands whose area of expertise is in some other aspect of fashion.


I understand completely where you are coming from and from what I posted, the point was that regardless of the watch snobs out there, Fossil makes watches that last, tell time and that they stand behind. That is what I look for when I go to purchase a watch. I know the pedigree of brands such as Rolex, but nothing would ever click in my brain that something that does the same thing as something else would cost several $1000 more and I wouldn't get anything more out of it. So a Ford car and a Porsche car for example, I know that if I want to go fast, I'll spend more money for a Porsche (well that new shelby is pretty damn fast), however my Fossil watch tells more accurate time than a Rolex. I see people talk about being off +15 seconds a week or day or month and I'm not off 1 second a day in 12 years (of course it's a quartz). So even though it has the pedigree of the watch horological world, what makes it tell time (that is what a watch does after all) better than a $110 Fossil watch I can afford? Does it tell it faster? Stop in a time faster? Turn corners better? Safer in a wreck...etc. No, Does it have to have even more money paid into having it serviced over the years? Yes. Are the materials used to make it more costly, probably so, but what movement cost $40k to make? None, $10k to make? none. So you are paying for the name the same as the people that buy Michael Kors watches that while expensive for a fashion watch they are still cheaper and still tell the same time.

Now if my Fossil watch was crapping out on me after a year or two then your point of view might make more sense to me, however at 12 years it still ticks away and I've been through everything with it on my wrist. So tell me what more from a watch can I ask for than that? If it had a different name written on the dial you'd approved, but since it has Fossil on it, regardless of how well it keeps time, regardless of how long it last, regardless of what it goes through with me, you'll still see it as bad because of the name written on it, while I don't care because it tells time and I don't have to get it serviced or replaced after over a decade.

I've thought long and hard about buying a Vostok, love those Russians army designs, but what happens when I buy it and it stops working in 6 months? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Who is going to stand behind and repair it under warranty if it stops working? When you are on a budget with everything you do then you have to look at the total cost of an item. I see a watch I can buy that is covered by warranty for over a decade and then I look at a watch that I own that has worked longer than that warranty period and has done exactly what it was made to do, then people on here tell me it isn't a real watch. Then WTF would you call it?

BTW can you tell me who makes the movement STP-1-11 or the Ronda 5030.D? Both are movements found in Fossil watches.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Isop said:


> BTW can you tell me who makes the movement STP-1-11 or the Ronda 5030.D? Both are movements found in Fossil watches.


STP-1-11 is made by STP - Swiss Technology Products SA, Manno, Ticino, CH









the Ronda 5030.D is made by Ronda.


----------



## Isop (Jan 12, 2013)

So they are movements made by a company that makes movements for other watch companies and it's a positive thing for them, but negative for Fossil. *scratches head* Can't figure that one out.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

> ....0k to make? none. So you are paying for the name the same as the people that buy Michael Kors watches that while expensive for a fashion watch they are still cheaper and still tell the same time.


Michael Kors = Fossil, as well as Burberry, Zodiac, Emporio Armani, Karl Lagerfeld, Adidas, any many more.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Don't know what you are talking about, just answered your question. And fyi Fossil is the major shareholder of STP, formerly known as PWH Peoduction SA.
According to Martin Frey! Managing Director Fossil Group Europe, the STP1-11 will in 2014 (or later) be available for third party customers.


----------



## Isop (Jan 12, 2013)

ecthelion said:


> I think everyone is missing the point here - Fossil makes nice-looking watches (and as many testify they can take a beating as well), but none of the innards, i.e. what really makes a watch tick, are designed in-house by Fossil; it's all sourced from someone else. The movement inside a Seiko 5 was designed at Seiko and is manufactured by Seiko. The movements inside Vostok watches are designed by Vostok and manufactured by Vostok. And so on. In terms of horology, the level of class associated with a watch is heavily dependent on its perceived origin and whether or not it uses an in-house (i.e. designed by the same company that distributes and manufactures the rest of the watch) movement. (Exceptions are made for watches that use ébauche movements from ETA/Valjoux and Ronda, as these are the last remnants of large-scale movement manufacturing in the Swiss watch industry, and many high-quality watches use movements from one of these two manufacturers; ETA in particular, as part of the Swatch Group, absorbed a large number of watch movement manufacturers in the wake of the Quartz Revolution.) In Fossil's case, on both counts it falls short, and this is why some people feel like they can say negative things about the company and its products, and just be snobbish in general.





stuffler said:


> Don't know what you are talking about, just answered your question. And fyi Fossil is the major shareholder of STP, formerly known as PWH Peoduction SA.
> According to Martin Frey! Managing Director Fossil Group Europe, the STP1-11 will in 2014 (or later) be available for third party customers.


Just showing the bias. So Fossil using Rhonda in some of their watches, which is OKAY if other brands use them, but Fossil doesn't get that pass, they still aren't making real watches to some people. Then we also see that they do own a company (okay are majory shareholders of said company) to make their own in-house movements and again, it's isn't good enough for some people. So the question is, what exactly does a company need to do to be considered a watch company to these snobs that look down on them?

Personally I don't care what others think of my awesome watch, I just some times try to understand other peoples thinking as it then lets me see things other ways.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Isop said:


> Just showing the bias. So Fossil using Rhonda in some of their watches, which is OKAY if other brands use them, but Fossil doesn't get that pass, they still aren't making real watches to some people. Then we also see that they do own a company (okay are majory shareholders of said company) to make their own in-house movements and again, it's isn't good enough for some people. So the question is, what exactly does a company need to do to be considered a watch company to these snobs that look down on them?
> 
> Personally I don't care what others think of my awesome watch, I just some times try to understand other peoples thinking as it then lets me see things other ways.


What are you talking about. "Just showing the bias" What ? I just answered your question and added some information. Please remove my quote since it is used in the wrong context.


----------



## Isop (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm in no way saying you are bias. I'm using your information as facts to the opinions of those that are biased and said that fossil watches are not good watches and that they can't be a real watch company because they don't use an in house movement or don't use movements from companies that make well regarded ones. Your facts prove that argument wrong.

Sorry for the confusion, didn't realize I was coming off saying you were biased. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Ok, thanks.
Btw and maybe as a last remark: the STP 1-11 looks very similar to an ETA 2824-2, however FOSSIL stated that all parts are sourced from non-ETA suppliers. So there is a way to circumvent the Swatch Group.


----------



## narcosynthesis (Dec 28, 2009)

In my head I have always seen Fossil as more of a fashion brand than a serious watch manufacturer - they make watches to be worn as an accessory alongside all their other clothing and accessory lines, not as a horological tool.

At the same time, that doesn't mean they make a bad watch, just I would personally expect there to be more effort put into branding and style than build quality - people will buy their watches because they look nice and because they will see them in 'fashion' stores when out looking for new shoes to match an outfit or whatever, whether they make a top quality item or not.
The fact that there have been a few problems with rust or durability does prove to me that they are perhaps focussing on areas other than the ultimate quality of the piece - why would they spend the money speccing high quality materials when their target market will only wear a watch for the season it is fashionable before replacing it?

If they use decent third party movements then that will actually give me a better opinion of them than using generic chinese quartz ones like many cheaper 'fashion' watches. Hell, a lot of the 'proper' watch manufacturers outsource the movements because it just isn't possible to make them affordable without working on a huge scale...


----------



## natnaes (Apr 15, 2012)

narcosynthesis said:


> In my head I have always seen Fossil as more of a fashion brand than a serious watch manufacturer - they make watches to be worn as an accessory alongside all their other clothing and accessory lines, not as a horological tool.
> 
> At the same time, that doesn't mean they make a bad watch, just I would personally expect there to be more effort put into branding and style than build quality - people will buy their watches because they look nice and because they will see them in 'fashion' stores when out looking for new shoes to match an outfit or whatever, whether they make a top quality item or not.
> The fact that there have been a few problems with rust or durability does prove to me that they are perhaps focussing on areas other than the ultimate quality of the piece - why would they spend the money speccing high quality materials when their target market will only wear a watch for the season it is fashionable before replacing it?
> ...


It really depends on what "horological tool" is perceived to be meant to do. In terms of telling accurate time, I believe it has been iterated many times on these forums that we are best invested in a $20 Casio with 10-year battery. Its got a quartz movement just as accurate as any other quality quartz you can get and definitely way more accurate than any expensive swiss mechanical movement you can buy, including the legendary Grand Seiko, at negligible service costs. Speaking of the Grand Seiko, if time-telling is to be the determinant of a good watch, the best mechanical watch anyone can buy at the moment is the Grand Seiko. But no, we still love our Omegas, Rolexes, etc. Obviously it's more about the brand image that we identify with and we want to be represented by, more than "value for money", or any other seemingly rational rationality that watch snobs pull out of their butts. So if someone likes the style and image Fossil represents, I don't see why not, they're sturdy and have movements made by reliable manufacturers.

With regards to "build quality", Casio has better build quality than anything. G-Shock is the only thing I dare say will last 30 years without breaking, I wouldn't dare say the same about any other watch. I have a friend who works at the service center for Patek Philippe, trust me they are very busy people (yes, <$10,000 watches break too and get sent in for repairs).


----------



## ck40711 (Sep 12, 2013)

I have a fossil 'blue' I got in 1996. I were it daily, bang around in it, everything. It is still going strong and looks brand-new. It has outlasted luminox, timex, esq, Movado, etc. that I have owned during this same time frame. People can say what they want and I know some have had good in experiences and some have had bad . . . just like any watch company. But for me I am a fossil fan with nothing bad to say about them at all based on my experience and I would definitely buy from them again.


----------



## ecthelion (Jun 4, 2011)

Isop said:


> Just showing the bias. So Fossil using Rhonda in some of their watches, which is OKAY if other brands use them, but Fossil doesn't get that pass, they still aren't making real watches to some people. Then we also see that they do own a company (okay are majory shareholders of said company) to make their own in-house movements and again, it's isn't good enough for some people. So the question is, what exactly does a company need to do to be considered a watch company to these snobs that look down on them?
> 
> Personally I don't care what others think of my awesome watch, I just some times try to understand other peoples thinking as it then lets me see things other ways.


1) I wasn't aware that some of Fossil's automatics used Ronda movements, nor was I aware that Fossil controlled a majority share of a movement manufacturer (which appears to be Swiss, no less).
2) I was not expressing my own opinion or perceived bias, just what I understand to be the point of view of some other enthusiasts. (I personally like Fossil watches, and I think that people figuratively crapping on them for reasons of perception is unfair.)
3) It is precisely your kind of language and fight-mongering that I was trying to mitigate with my post. On both sides (Fossil is great v. Fossil is awful) there seems to be a lot of emotion involved, and that only gets people more worked up about something that ultimately doesn't matter. If you like the watch and the brand, does it really matter what other people have to say about it? Sure, people will always have opinions about things that interest them, and yes, sometimes it'll involve something you're interested in. Big deal.



Isop said:


> Fossil makes watches that last, tell time and that they stand behind. That is what I look for when I go to purchase a watch. I know the pedigree of brands such as Rolex, but nothing would ever click in my brain that something that does the same thing as something else would cost several $1000 more and I wouldn't get anything more out of it. So a Ford car and a Porsche car for example, I know that if I want to go fast, I'll spend more money for a Porsche (well that new shelby is pretty damn fast), however my Fossil watch tells more accurate time than a Rolex. I see people talk about being off +15 seconds a week or day or month and I'm not off 1 second a day in 12 years (of course it's a quartz). So even though it has the pedigree of the watch horological world, what makes it tell time (that is what a watch does after all) better than a $110 Fossil watch I can afford? Does it tell it faster? Stop in a time faster? Turn corners better? Safer in a wreck...etc. No, Does it have to have even more money paid into having it serviced over the years? Yes. Are the materials used to make it more costly, probably so, but what movement cost $40k to make? None, $10k to make? none. So you are paying for the name the same as the people that buy Michael Kors watches that while expensive for a fashion watch they are still cheaper and still tell the same time.
> 
> Now if my Fossil watch was crapping out on me after a year or two then your point of view might make more sense to me, however at 12 years it still ticks away and I've been through everything with it on my wrist. So tell me what more from a watch can I ask for than that?


1) What you look for when you purchase a watch is not going to be the same thing other people look for when they purchase a watch. Do you somehow think that everyone else should be looking for the same things you're looking for in a watch (my guess is "no")? This is precisely the reason why lots of people dislike snobbery, because the watch snobs presume to suggest that everyone should be assessing watches in the same way they do. Hypothetically, if you're suggesting that everyone else should be looking for the same things in a watch that you do (again, I didn't say you did), you'd be no better than the snobs you're yelling against.
2) People are not necessarily paying for performance, and this is true of both cars and watches. To use your automobile analogy (which is imperfect), the difference between most production cars (i.e. your Fords and GM vehicles) and the "high-end" vehicles might include some aspect of performance (because that is the way one measures vehicles) but there is also the fact that many high-end vehicles use more expensive materials (and there is a correlation between materials used and vehicle performance, though this correlation does not exist for watches) and in the case of the really high-end brands (I do not know if this is still the case) their vehicles were built/assembled by hand.

In terms of performance, there is no doubt that quartz watches are more accurate than automatics. But do they last longer? That depends on who you ask (there are a number of people out there who will give you their story of the crappy Timex or Fossil that died on them within months of purchase - the OP's watch is a great example). Are they made by hand? There is an aspect of craftsmanship that goes into many of the high-end watches (which demands a premium in terms of cost, sure) that people are paying for. Do they have a history? Most of the high-end manufacturers that are still left have a history of decades, even in some cases centuries, of production. Some pieces that have survived for decades still function about as well as the day they were purchased (with proper servicing, of course). Quartz watches have been around for at best 45 years; there are plenty of functional mechanical watches that are far older than that.

Materials aren't the only reason why high-end watches are expensive, but you don't really expect platinum or gold in your Fossils and expect them to remain affordable, do you? The majority of people on these forums could make the argument (better than I could, anyway) that aspects of high-end watch manufacture do in fact justify the high list prices they command, and their argument would not only rest on parts and labor, but it would involve aspects of licensing, patented designs, etc. etc. I think your personal emphasis on performance is fine, but it is hardly a rationale by which you can dismiss the opinions of others, especially because like with many things, performance is not the only category by which things are assessed. People are not numbers or test scores, and neither are their watches or cars.


----------



## The Thomas J (Dec 31, 2013)

I have fossil diver/chrono that I purchased the summer of 1997. It was my daily wearer for years, never had an issue with the way it ran or water resistance. I found it to be a fantastic watch that held up very well. I did everything while wearing that watch including playing hockey with it, when the spring bar broke causing the watch to fall off my wrist as I wound up for a slap shot. I missed the puck but fired the watch into the boards. Convinced it was destroyed I was shocked to find it was perfectly fine. Only damage was a scratch on the crystal. I still wear it from time to time.


----------



## RGorris (Jul 8, 2014)

I haven't even looked at Fossil watches since seeing all the problems that my father has had with his. He has an Ohio State Fossil from when they actually had license to make team watches. The watch has been sent in for repair about 5 times and Fossil go so fed up trying to fix it that they sent my dad his watch back and a gift card for the original msrp. He ended up using the gift card for a wallet and some other stuff from the store because he didn't want to purchase another one of there watches.


----------

