# What is so wrong about Hublot?



## tony20009

I don't think there is a brand that is more well disliked than Hublot, unless it's Fossil or Parnis. And frankly, I just don't see why. Is there actually something wrong or bad about their watches? I had one one my wrist briefly and it felt pretty good sitting there and it didn't look bad either. I also don't know how to pronounce their name. I've heard "ooh-blo," "Who-blo," "Hoob-lot," (rhymes with hoop shot) and "Hub-lot." That said, it's still easy to spell, and that's a big plus over many a watch brand's name.

So this is what I know about Hublot:

They make multiple lines of watches three of which are incredibly similar. There are hundreds of configurations/looks within/among the three styles. 
Some of their styles are very "blingy" and some are clean and contemporary. No traditional/conventional looks. 
They are all about chronographs. 
Their watches seem to be larger rather than smaller, the smallest I know about being 41mm. 
I seem them often enough in the Middle East and Los Angeles. I don't see them so much in other places. 
They use a variety of materials -- steel, gold, tantalum, carbon fiber, etc. -- and they offer those metals in several colors. 
They make their own movements, including tourbillions and minute repeaters, and though they might, I haven't yet heard of them buying in movements. (Check out Anish in the video below to hear theirs. To my ear it's one of the best sounding ones. I can tell why it's called "cathedral;" it's reminiscent of a cathedral bell) 
They utilize features found in other pricey watches 
They pay attention to small details like how to easily and quickly swap out straps, making a minute repeater from less sound absorbing metals than gold and platinum so that the sound is louder. 
They created a ceramic alloy of gold that is considerably more scratch resistant. 
They purchase materials companies so that, like Rolex, they can fabricate more of their watches themselves. 
They utilize a variety of pop culture and sports figures as spokespersons such as Depeche Mode, Kobe Bryant and Jay Z. 
They support causes, like Charity Water, that do something for folks who will likely never buy a Hublot. Hell, those beneficiaries may never see a Hublot. 
They execute haute horology themes -- tourbillion, minute repeater, and so on -- and deploy them in watches that one could wear as easily to the grocery store or squash court as to the office. In this regard, they seem to the the "normal guys" haute horology manufacturer. I think that's pretty cool, actually. 

As for the look of their watches, I like a lot of their Fusion line pieces, but I think others can look good too. I can't say one should or should like the aesthetics of the things. I just don't see what's so awful about them. I feel like their basic look definitely has some AP/PP inspiration going on (for all I know GG may have designed Hublot's pieces...I really don't know). Even IWC has/had a watch that has a RO/Nautilus feel to it, and it has screws around it's bezel as does the RO and BB. Even so, Hublot has also exploited the opportunities available with that design to the fullest and in ways that other folks have not. Again, I may not like the looks, but I can't deny the innovation or originality of them. And it's not like they are cheesey knock-offs like so many other companies produce.

In closing, I'd say that while I'm not keen to make a case _for_ Hublot, I don't see much of one against them, yet I see a lot of scorn.

All the best, and yes, I like the little cubic function curve in their logo.

Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.
- Michael Crichton, _State of Fear_

Big Bang Tantalum









*Carbon Fiber Minute Repeater*

*







*

Hublot BB Green and Red









*Scratch Resistant Gold Hublot* *-* *"Magic Gold" *(COMMENT FABRIQUE-T-ON LE FAMEUX MAGIC GOLD CHEZ HUBLOT ? - YouTube)









*King Power Knockout* - (OK, so now I know what those Invicta Zeus watches are clones of <winks>) As flashy watches go, it's really not bad.









*King Power Cathedral Gong Tourbillion Minute Repeater *(say that three times fast...LOL) Hublot King Power Cathedral Gong Tourbillon Marcus Edition Watch - YouTube









*Hublot Classic Fusion









Classic Fusion Red Skeleton* - This looks pretty good to me. It may be the only skeleton I've seen that I thought looked good.










*Classic Fusion Titanium*


----------



## Watchbreath

My main gripe is replacement rubber straps, you have to find an AD that has the strap kit and it'll be your luck 
that there're out of the size you need.


----------



## tony20009

Watchbreath said:


> My main gripe is replacement rubber straps, you have to find an AD that has the strap kit and it'll be your luck
> that there're out of the size you need.


That's good to know. TY for sharing.

I can probably manage that well enough: buy a replacement when I buy the watch. They could be out of stock at that time, but at least I'm ordering it before I need it. It'll surely show up in time. <winks>

A salesperson once advised me to do that once and I did, so NP. The downside is that I have to "moisturize" my straps a couple times a year. Maybe I don't, but I do it. My straps get the same loving care as my shoes. Fortunately, I prefer bracelets, so it's not too much of a pain, but rest assured, it's a pain because they are so small.

Admittedly, if I had a bracelet go South, I'd be up the creek without a paddle.

All the best and TY again.


----------



## AbuKalb93

I could start to rant but im far too tired, i will say this though...any AD of a brand who tells you to stay away from that brand should make you wonder...


----------



## mpalmer

One of the primary reasons I think they are disliked on the forums is they do not represent good value for money at their price points when compared with their competitors. I think this is a legitimate criticism of the brand. A second reason they are disliked is for their garish styles. I think this is a less substantive complaint as I think there is a place for sporty and avant garde in watches just as there is for the ultra conservative.

There are any number of Hublot that I would happily wear and own if gifted to me - just not at the prices they charge because I feel there would be more attractive options if I had that sort of budget.


----------



## shnjb

I think charging 10K for ETA movement is pretty dumb.

I like their garish design but then I also like ROO and Richard Milles so I guess I'm a sucker for garish designs (but not diamond rolex... now that is really garish).

I don't think I would ever consider buying a Hublot though.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> I think charging 10K for ETA movement is pretty dumb.


This primarily.

Even if it was using a JLC or AP movement, I still think 10k is too much for a watch with an outsourced movement.

I'd rather spend 1-2k more and get an Audermars Piguet, Blancpain, or even a JLC with change left.


----------



## shnjb

lorsban said:


> This primarily.
> 
> Even if it was using a JLC or AP movement, I still think 10k is too much for a watch with an outsourced movement.
> 
> I'd rather spend 1-2k more and get an Audermars Piguet, Blancpain, or even a JLC with change left.


outsourced high-end movement is just fine by me.
outsourced low-end movement is a big no no.


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> outsourced high-end movement is just fine by me.
> outsourced low-end movement is a big no no.


I suppose a high end movement is better than a regular ETA.

But you still have to look at what else is available at that price range (8-12k) and compare. And really, there are already a ton of excellent watches at that range with in-house movements, more style options, better resale, etc...

I've bought my share of watches purely based on looks and not value and I definitely have regretted every one of those purchases. At that price, there's too much to lose imo.

My wife one time was about to spend almost $4000 on a Chanel watch. I was like "NOOOOOOO!" And showed her Rolex and Cartier. She later chose Cartier.


----------



## shnjb

Like you I don't think I would ever buy a Hublot for myself.
But they do have a pretty recognizable design that is distinct although reminiscent of Royal Oaks, which is a good thing.



lorsban said:


> I suppose a high end movement is better than a regular ETA.
> 
> But you still have to look at what else is available at that price range (8-12k) and compare. And really, there are already a ton of excellent watches at that range with in-house movements, more style options, better resale, etc...
> 
> I've bought my share of watches purely based on looks and not value and I definitely have regretted every one of those purchases. At that price, there's too much to lose imo.


----------



## Chronopolis

mpalmer said:


> ...they do not represent good value for money at their price points when compared with their competitors. I think this is a legitimate criticism of the brand.


But this is contradictory, given how much of the dislike is supposedly based on their design, and association / connotation - namely, a "rich man's Invicta."

Anything one does NOT like, does NOT wish to buy, is, by definition, over-priced, no?
And if not, then that means one WOULD/COULD consider buying one, if the price were lower.
And that means, the "complaint" about their "fugliness," and the "vulgarity" of those "poseurs" who wear them has no foundation whatsoever.

A bit like Woody Allen complaining (I forget which movie): "The food is awful, and portions are small too!"


----------



## lorsban

shnjb said:


> Like you I don't think I would ever buy a Hublot for myself.
> But they do have a pretty recognizable design that is distinct although reminiscent of Royal Oaks, which is a good thing.


Agreed. They do have a distinct design. Not sure how much of it is AP inspired but I definitely wouldn't confuse the two.

Purely on a style perspective tho, they seem to be too flashy for me.


----------



## shnjb

lorsban said:


> Agreed. They do have a distinct design. Not sure how much of it is AP inspired but I definitely wouldn't confuse the two.
> 
> Purely on a style perspective tho, they seem to be too flashy for me.


I think they look fantastic on women.


----------



## BenGmin

I know nothing about them but love the look of them personally. Way more than I could ever afford though


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> I think* charging 10K for ETA movement* is pretty dumb.
> 
> I like their garish design but then I also like ROO and Richard Milles so I guess I'm a sucker for garish designs (but not diamond rolex... now that is really garish).
> 
> I don't think I would ever consider buying a Hublot though.
> 
> 
> 
> lorsban said:
> 
> 
> 
> This primarily.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

Okay. I hear you both. I agree somewhat, but not always. But that's beside the point.

I spent some time digging around to confirm your comments about their movements being purchased in. I cannot find anything corroborating it. What I did find is this: Hublot Big Bang UNICO 45mm Watch Hands-On: Story Of The Bigger Bang - Page 2 of 2 | aBlogtoWatch

Hublot began to produce some extremely high-end movements in-house in around 2010 after famed movement maker BNB Concept shutdown due to a lack of paying customers (due to the recession). When the company shutdown after declaring bankruptcy, Biver purchased many of the company's assets (including machinery) and hired the lead designer (Mathias Buttet) to work for Hublot. Buttet, never a "money guy" has been quite happy at Hublot and is currently in charge of developing their most high-end creations. He and/or his machines from BNB Concept helped in the development and eventual production of the Hublot UNICO - an in-house movement whose goal it was to replace 7750 movements in Big Bang watches....

...Early versions of the UNICO for example were planned to have carbon fiber main plates. It was an ambitious concept that was in fact used in some watches, but apparently didn't turn out to be something that Hublot could produce in large quantities from about 2011-2012.​
I also found this: Hublot Transforms as a True Watch Manufacture - Hautetime

Hublot has done so well with ETA movements until now, so why ruin a good thing? To start, ETA will no longer be supplying movement kits (ébauches) to brands outside of its parent company, the Swatch Group. Rather than relying on another supplier whose movements may be inferior to ETA 's, or can't supply as many, JCB is making Hublot take the wise route of simply making their own movements from now on. Plus, when you make your own movements, you have a superior level of control and quality, allowing you to prevent and resolve problems as well as guarantee there are enough movements for the watches you plan on making. Movement making is also the basis for improving movements and allows Hublot to make technical innovations in the development of new complications and features. Hublot fans should rejoice. Not only is their favorite watch brand getting better, prices are not increasing​
I also checked Hublot's website and perused their movements and as far as I can tell from what I'm seeing, all their watches have their own movements inside. Moreover, it appears they make their cases too.

As for what Hublot charge for their watches, well, it seems in line with what comparable makers are charging.



mpalmer said:


> One of the primary reasons I think they are disliked on the forums is* they do not represent good value for money* at their price points when compared with their competitors. * I think this is a legitimate criticism of the brand*. ...
> 
> There are any number of Hublot that I would happily wear and own if gifted to me - just not at the prices they charge because I feel there would be more attractive options if I had that sort of budget.


I'm willing to accept your assertion provided there's some "meat" supporting it. I'd be more than happy to agree with criticism and I'd call it legit if there's actually something that legitimizes it. I happen to think that the Lange 1 isn't really worth _my _money because I just don't like the look of it and their cases look rather "ho hum" IMO. I also don't like that for all that money one pays for them, ALS buys-in their cases. But neither of those things are good enough for me to tell others it's a poor value. I feel the same about Stauer's products, but for them, I can show a clear relationship between the prices they charge and what one gets in return, which is the basis for my assertion about their watches being poor values for the money.

The reason I posted this thread is to learn what it is that makes folks believe that Hublot is not a good value. I truly don't know, as I've said, and what I see when I look at them seems no different (outside of aesthetics) than any other pricey watch company's offerings. I do truly want to learn something that will help me make a rational decision about Hublot's watches. I'm not out to defend Hublot, but I know better than to expect them to point out the negative aspects of their watches. That's what I'm asking for here.

All the best.

&#8230;it's better in fact to be guilty of manslaughter than of fraud about what is fair and just.
- Plato, _The Republic_


----------



## Kevin_Lomax

What Jean-Claude Biver did with Hublot is really impressive. The guy knows so much about the watch market and is a markeiting genius. He doesn't deny that the Hublot watches were strongly "influenced" by the AP RO Offshore. He knew that there was a big market for those kind of big flashy luxury sports watches.

Personally I don't like most of their models. I just think they are way too flashy, big, pushy for a luxury watch. And some of those green and red models that were posted look like cheap plastic watchtes to me. I think even the RO offshore borderline for me...

Some newer models look better, but still way too big for me. Regarding ETA Movements in some models, a lot of brands did that and still do. Same with Panerai. It takes some time to bild your own movements.. 

The problem I could see is that the buyers you target with those kind of watches are not very loyal to a brand. So there's a risk that the popularity could drop pretty quick. I think you need some more classic models to avoid that. 

Regarding that video with the Minute Repeater, I think it's respectable that they bild such watches. But a King Power in Carbon with a minute repeater seems like an odd combination...


----------



## iim7v7im7

Tony,

Some thoughts on the passionate dislike of Hublot by online WIS communities:

*The Company&#8230;
*
- Hublot is a relatively young brand (30+ years) and some value historic brands
- Hublot really "broke out" ~ 10 years ago under JC Biver's leadership & later LVMH capitalization
- Hublot is the king of the constant cycle "limited editions" differentiated by marketing/fashion
- Hublot is the king of events, celebrity/corporate endorsements and hype which offends some

*The Products&#8230;
*
- Hublot is known for combining case/bracelet materials and not movements
- Hublot is associated with the "Big Bang" many of which feel is a APRO homage 
- Hublot makes many large, "showy" pieces which puts off some
- Hublot uses ETA 7750/2892-A2 in much of their lines which offends some at the price-point

So you have a nexus of a flamboyant, marketing driven company, with little history, who produces large, showy watches associated with fashion/popular culture; many of which have very little horological value but are material and case driven. All of the Unico caliber based pieces are quite large (45.5-48 mm) and the movement is still relatively young (<5-years). This combination of elements, together with who they are competing against at their various price points offends the sensibilities of many WIS.

Contrary to WIS opinion, they are well managed, industry success story. They are also quite popular among customers of luxury brands, their quality of their products is excellent and so is their level of service. If someone likes a Hublot watch, I see no reason not to get it. In the end, it's a piece of "Man-Jewelry". If it makes you happy, by all means get it.

My $.02


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan

Never heard of them or seen them in person before. Look like oversized "I'm not gay" macho-dude watches. Someone please post some real "high-end" photos in this thread to wash out my eyes . . . .


----------



## tony20009

iim7v7im7 said:


> Tony,
> 
> Some thoughts on the passionate dislike of Hublot by online WIS communities:
> 
> *The Company&#8230;
> *
> - Hublot is a relatively young brand (30+ years) and some value historic brands
> - Hublot really "broke out" ~ 10 years ago under JC Biver's leadership & later LVMH capitalization
> - Hublot is the king of the constant cycle "limited editions" differentiated by marketing/fashion
> - Hublot is the king of events, celebrity/corporate endorsements and hype which offends some
> 
> *The Products&#8230;
> *
> - Hublot is known for combining case/bracelet materials and not movements
> - Hublot is associated with the "Big Bang" many of which feel is a APRO homage
> - Hublot makes many large, "showy" pieces which puts off some
> - Hublot uses ETA 7750/2892-A2 in much of their lines which offends some at the price-point
> 
> So you have a nexus of a flamboyant, marketing driven company, with little history, who produces large, showy watches associated with fashion/popular culture; many of which have very little horological value but are material and case driven. All of the Unico caliber based pieces are quite large (45.5-48 mm) and the movement is still relatively young (<5-years). This combination of elements, together with who they are competing against at their various price points offends the sensibilities of many WIS.
> 
> Contrary to WIS opinion, *they are well managed, industry success story*. They are also quite popular among customers of luxury brands, their *quality of their products is excellent and so is their level of service*. If someone likes a Hublot watch, I see no reason not to get it. In the end, it's a piece of "Man-Jewelry". If it makes you happy, by all means get it.
> 
> My $.02


TY for your input.

I'm glad you mentioned the things you did about Hublot, the company. As I have been reading about Hublot, I could not help but, repeatedly think: these folks are following, almost to the letter, Rolex's business model. I see a whole lot of similarity.

- Purchased in movements followed fairly soon afterwards with manufacture watchmaking (https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/what-so-wrong-about-hublot-968487-2.html#post7237148) -- I don't know why so many folks Hublot still uses ETA.
- Vertically integrating ASAP
- High quality workmanship
- Taking one basic case design and "exploding" it into literally hundreds of models
- Using "bling" and color as the major tools for adding variety to the product - both
- First rate marketing savvy - both
- Focus on first rate customer service - both
- Rapidly moving from being founded to being highly regarded and well known among folks who can afford the product - ~15 years (R); ~30 years (H)
- Strong focus mostly on one kind of movement/complication - Simple (R); Chronograph (H)
- Developing functional innovations/firsts that to the watch and that distinguish it -- Self-winding (R); Magic Gold (H); Rubber straps (H)

One thing I see different between Rolex and Hublot is that Hublot is heading into haute horology whereas Rolex generally doesn't play in that sandbox.

*On Hublot Design*
I certainly thought it might have something to with AP's design being its inspiration, but I was wrong. Hublot means porthole in French. Looking at their watches, it's not at all hard to see the connection between that term and the watch design.

All the best.

Instead of a Lemonade Stand, I should open up a "You know what I can't stand?" Stand. I'll sell rants in small, medium, and large. 
- Jarod Kintz


----------



## Orsoni

Someone used the word garish and that sums up my perception of the brand.

I prefer a more understated elegance.

A little dislike never hurt anyone afterall, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.


----------



## jforozco

I think its because of the following reasons.

1. prices are too high for the product they make
2. They use mostly ETA movements (so do many others)
3. They make "limited" editions for everybody (it seems that AP is doing the same thing these days).
4. Some of their watches are just plain ugly (it is hard to find ugly watches in high end brands)
5. Some of their watches are too blingy
6. a lot of people see them as a marketing brand and not horology brand
7. 

however I would say the following

Even though I am not a Hublot fan at all. There are some really nice pieces that are more on the cleaner/simpler side. They also make a very nice tourbillon that is one of the most accessible in the market. Their materials are innovative.

these and many other reasons is probably why you will see many Hublots on many non-collectors writs, but not as many on real collectors wrists.


----------



## tony20009

Orsoni said:


> ...what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.


...as you lay with a catheter, maimed for the remainder of your days on life support. <winks>


----------



## Gary123

Well, if you think about it, there had to be some watch company willing to step up and provide higher end watches to those with a taste for large, techno, macho looking watches. They have done it, and they take scorn for it. I like some of their watches but I've never held one to be able to assess if the quality of fit and finish justify what seem to be high prices.


----------



## shnjb

Gary123 said:


> Well, if you think about it, there had to be some watch company willing to step up and provide higher end watches to those with a taste for large, techno, macho looking watches. They have done it, and they take scorn for it. I like some of their watches but I've never held one to be able to assess if the quality of fit and finish justify what seem to be high prices.


Yeah I think so too.
Some product had to fit that niche other than AP ROO.

Most young people who are not WUS member types don't really appreciate the classical looks of a Patek, Breguet and Lange.

I do think AP does it better though with better historical credentials and non-ETA (note: luxury) movements.


----------



## Gary123

shnjb said:


> ............
> 
> ...................
> 
> I do think AP does it better though with better historical credentials and non-ETA (note: luxury) movements.


I agree. But if one wants something on their wrist that is large, ballsy, brash and macho, Hublot probably does it best, and costs less than AP's various limited edition iterations of the ROO. AP would be the only other manufacturer that offers this genre.


----------



## shnjb

Gary123 said:


> I agree. But if one wants something on their wrist that is large, ballsy, brash and macho, Hublot probably does it best, and costs less than AP's various limited edition iterations of the ROO. AP would be the only other manufacturer that offers this genre.


richard mille is another.
but they're completely out of my reach for now.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

This is only my opinion, so if you disagree, it may only mean we have differing tastes, which is normal, but here goes:

what's wrong with Hublot is that they are ostentatious, garish, tacky and ugly overpriced AP ROO look-alikes, that's what!


----------



## TimelessFan

tony20009 said:


> I don't think there is a brand that is more well disliked than Hublot, unless it's Fossil or Parnis. And frankly, I just don't see why. Is there actually something wrong or bad about their watches? I had one one my wrist briefly and it felt pretty good sitting there and it didn't look bad either. I also don't know how to pronounce their name. I've heard "ooh-blo," "Who-blo," "Hoob-lot," (rhymes with hoop shot) and "Hub-lot." That said, it's still easy to spell, and that's a big plus over many a watch brand's name.
> 
> So this is what I know about Hublot:
> 
> They make multiple lines of watches three of which are incredibly similar. There are hundreds of configurations/looks within/among the three styles.
> Some of their styles are very "blingy" and some are clean and contemporary. No traditional/conventional looks.
> They are all about chronographs.
> Their watches seem to be larger rather than smaller, the smallest I know about being 41mm.
> I seem them often enough in the Middle East and Los Angeles. I don't see them so much in other places.
> They use a variety of materials -- steel, gold, tantalum, carbon fiber, etc. -- and they offer those metals in several colors.
> They make their own movements, including tourbillions and minute repeaters, and though they might, I haven't yet heard of them buying in movements. (Check out Anish in the video below to hear theirs. To my ear it's one of the best sounding ones. I can tell why it's called "cathedral;" it's reminiscent of a cathedral bell)
> They utilize features found in other pricey watches
> They pay attention to small details like how to easily and quickly swap out straps, making a minute repeater from less sound absorbing metals than gold and platinum so that the sound is louder.
> They created a ceramic alloy of gold that is considerably more scratch resistant.
> They purchase materials companies so that, like Rolex, they can fabricate more of their watches themselves.
> They utilize a variety of pop culture and sports figures as spokespersons such as Depeche Mode, Kobe Bryant and Jay Z.
> They support causes, like Charity Water, that do something for folks who will likely never buy a Hublot. Hell, those beneficiaries may never see a Hublot.
> They execute haute horology themes -- tourbillion, minute repeater, and so on -- and deploy them in watches that one could wear as easily to the grocery store or squash court as to the office. In this regard, they seem to the the "normal guys" haute horology manufacturer. I think that's pretty cool, actually.
> 
> As for the look of their watches, I like a lot of their Fusion line pieces, but I think others can look good too. I can't say one should or should like the aesthetics of the things. I just don't see what's so awful about them. I feel like their basic look definitely has some AP/PP inspiration going on (for all I know GG may have designed Hublot's pieces...I really don't know). Even IWC has/had a watch that has a RO/Nautilus feel to it, and it has screws around it's bezel as does the RO and BB. Even so, Hublot has also exploited the opportunities available with that design to the fullest and in ways that other folks have not. Again, I may not like the looks, but I can't deny the innovation or originality of them. And it's not like they are cheesey knock-offs like so many other companies produce.
> 
> In closing, I'd say that while I'm not keen to make a case _for_ Hublot, I don't see much of one against them, yet I see a lot of scorn.
> 
> All the best, and yes, I like the little cubic function curve in their logo.
> 
> Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.
> - Michael Crichton, _State of Fear_
> 
> Big Bang Tantalum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Carbon Fiber Minute Repeater*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Hublot BB Green and Red
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Scratch Resistant Gold Hublot* *-* *"Magic Gold" *(COMMENT FABRIQUE-T-ON LE FAMEUX MAGIC GOLD CHEZ HUBLOT ? - YouTube)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *King Power Knockout* - (OK, so now I know what those Invicta Zeus watches are clones of <winks>) As flashy watches go, it's really not bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *King Power Cathedral Gong Tourbillion Minute Repeater *(say that three times fast...LOL) Hublot King Power Cathedral Gong Tourbillon Marcus Edition Watch - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hublot Classic Fusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Fusion Red Skeleton* - This looks pretty good to me. It may be the only skeleton I've seen that I thought looked good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Classic Fusion Titanium*


*
OH, MY EYES! MY EYES!!!!!!!*


----------



## Steelhead

That thing they do with making the hands the same color as the dial, that annoys me. It's like they're saying "reading the time is not the most important thing here."


----------



## Watchbreath

That's even worse with Rolex with their champagne dial and Gold hands.


----------



## PremierCurrency

shnjb said:


> Most young people who are not WUS member types don't really appreciate the classical looks of a Patek, Breguet and Lange.


I'm 29, and I like all 3!!!


----------



## shnjb

PremierCurrency said:


> I'm 29, and I like all 3!!!


I'm 30 and I like all three too.
Too bad I can't afford all those


----------



## entropy96

It might be because of the:
a) obnoxious advertisements
b) oversized and gaudy designs
c) awkward colorways
d) perception of people towards its brand ambassadors/endorsers
e) overpricing compared to other competing brands
f) combination of 2 or more of the assumptions above


----------



## eliz

This is what's wrong


----------



## iim7v7im7

Tony,

JC Biver is a legendary watch industry executive (Audemars Piguet, Omega and Blancpain pre-Hublot) who catapulted Hublot from a failing brand into a successful brand in record-order (2004 = ~25M CHF vs. 2008 = ~250M CHF). In 2008, with the sale of the company to luxury conglomerate LVMH, Biver now had the capital to both enhance materials R&D, movement manufacture (BNB Concept) and of course marketing. 

I do think the decision to design the Unico as a Valjoux 7750 size equivalent (to be able to drop into case/dial design) is limiting to their watch designs. It is a relatively thick, 13-1/4 ligne movement and as a result, it in turn drives very large/thick watch designs (which are the rage of recent times, but this may swing back). 

Regarding the similarity to Rolex, I am not sure that I am fully with you on that, but I do see some of your points. Rolex is an entirely different beast and much of that relates to the scale of its operations and a development strategy based on incremental evolution/optimization. The use of a nautical porthole motif is common to Hublot, AP (Royal Oak) and the PP (Nautilus). The use of bezel perimeter screw heads, the bold size and graphical nature of their pieces make them most similar to AP ROO in my view.

As I said, they are not my “cup of tea” for a number of reasons (as is true of many luxury products/companies); but it is certain that they are a very well run company with a growing client base. Different strokes for different folks…


----------



## PremierCurrency

eliz said:


> This is what's wrong
> 
> View attachment 1346485


 My god, that's one of the most disgusting advertisements of any kind that I've ever seen. The people that thought up, designed, and approved that should be publically stoned&#8230;


----------



## AbuKalb93

PremierCurrency said:


> My god, that's one of the most disgusting advertisements of any kind that I've ever seen. The people that thought up, designed, and approved that should be publically stoned&#8230;


+1


----------



## watchVT

eliz said:


> This is what's wrong
> 
> View attachment 1346485


Looks like Bernie came to Hublot with the idea.. Still very strange they thought it fitting to put this ad out.

F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone is battered face of new ad for £200k Hublot watch | Mail Online


----------



## tony20009

eliz said:


> This is what's wrong
> [Bernie Ecclestone pic deleted]


Poor Bernie although I have to say I give props to anyone who's willing to be publicly photographed looking like that, all the more if the photo is going to be widely distributed.

Personally, I think that is an excellent ad. There seem to be many parallels between Mr. E and Hublot as a brand, not the least of which is the controversy both have created for themselves, and yet both are quite successful and both are quite good at what they do/produce. Both share a general story of a very rapid and hard earned rise from obscurity to great achievement.

I see that ad as Hublot not only drawing parallels between itself as a brand and Mr. E, but also as Hublot laughing at itself and at its naysayers. It's pretty clear that there's an underlying message regarding the comments of Hublot's arguably unattractive appearance, and yet the watch, as pictured, looks quite nice. It's also apparent that Hublot is offering a nod of appreciation to its supporters.

Personally, I like that ad and it's "You and the horse you rode in on can go to Hell" tone.

All the best.

I love those who can smile in trouble...
- Leonardo da Vinci


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

PremierCurrency said:


> My god, that's one of the most disgusting advertisements of any kind that I've ever seen. The people that thought up, designed, and approved that should be publically stoned&#8230;





AbuKalb93 said:


> +1





watchVT said:


> Looks like Bernie came to Hublot with the idea.. Still very strange they thought it fitting to put this ad out.
> 
> F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone is battered face of new ad for £200k Hublot watch | Mail Online


You do realise the simple fact you are all reposting the image and (violently) discussing it is validating the creative work right?

It's obvious the creative aims at 'chocking' the audience, and it just works  And I am also sure the people reacting negatively are the ones who would have never bought a Hublot in the first place. I imagine sometime in the future, someone from the thousands searching 'hublot' in google image search wll be seeing this ad and thinking 'I like their style, fight for your watch, hit people in the face lol, that's a fun brand compared to the boring classic luxury messaging'.

You just enabled this by reposting it 3 times. You made the brand bigger, and more controversial, and cooler for some people


----------



## GETS

eliz said:


> This is what's wrong
> 
> View attachment 1346485


I agree with Tony. I like the advert quite a lot. Hell - it's done it's job - I might even buy one some day (not that model though).

I used to dislike Hublot simply because the pics I saw seemed to indicate they only did garish oversized watches. However one of my AD's started stocking them and I have to say that some of their smaller models with cleaner dials are really rather nice. I also know I could get at least a 30% discount off from new so I think the price point issue becomes slightly less of a thing for me to worry about.

Lastly (and I expect a LOT of flak for this) I'm really kind of bored with all the ETA movement criticism in relation to price, 'brilliance' or accuracy. ETA movements are worked on (to a lesser or greater extent) by nearly all that used them. The best example of making improvements to this ebauche was IWC (I think from recollection and study on the subject a long time ago?) So not all ETA are the same as another ETA - It's just the 'starting point' for many that put them in the casing. In addition the movement is accurate, robust and cheap to service. So I have a lovely ALS, a Patek or two etc and love them too - but never at the expense of being an ETA snob, which in my opinion gets far too much noise on this forum by some who should know better.

Hublot are more and more acceptable to me - the more I learn about them.


----------



## watchVT

Galactic Sushiman said:


> You do realise the simple fact you are all reposting the image and (violently) discussing it is validating the creative work right?
> 
> It's obvious the creative aims at 'chocking' the audience, and it just works  And I am also sure the people reacting negatively are the ones who would have never bought a Hublot in the first place. I imagine sometime in the future, someone from the thousands searching 'hublot' in google image search wll be seeing this ad and thinking 'I like their style, fight for your watch, hit people in the face lol, that's a fun brand compared to the boring classic luxury messaging'.
> 
> You just enabled this by reposting it 3 times. You made the brand bigger, and more controversial, and cooler for some people


Well if that's the case, I probably wouldn't want to be associated with that individual anyway.

If I have enabled a company to become bigger, cooler, and more controversial with a single repost, I'd say I've seriously underestimated my internet prowess as well..

Also, I never said anything violent. Although not my cup of tea right now it is possible I'll pick one up to try out down the road (never say never with watches). :-!


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

watchVT said:


> Well if that's the case, I probably wouldn't want to be associated with someone like that anyway.
> 
> If I have enabled a company to become bigger, cooler, and more controversial with a single repost, I'd say I've seriously underestimated my internet prowess.


Everything is relative 

My post is voluntarily provocative, obviously my scenario is stretched  
Let's phrase it in another way: it's like when you vote for the president, there are millions of others voting too, so you know, you contribute so marginally, it's virtually 'nothing'... But you are a small part of something bigger, and everyone does it, so it is actually extremely important right?

Well, in the Hublot Marketing dptmt plan to conquer the world, you just did your part, it's small, but if everyone does it, they will win


----------



## tony20009

GETS said:


> I agree with Tony. I like the advert quite a lot. Hell - it's done it's job - I might even buy one some day (not that model though).
> 
> *I used to dislike Hublot simply because the pics I saw seemed to indicate they only did garish oversized watches*. However one of my AD's started stocking them and I have to say that some of their smaller models with cleaner dials are really rather nice. I also know I could get at least a 30% discount off from new so I think the price point issue becomes slightly less of a thing for me to worry about.
> 
> Lastly (and I expect a LOT of flak for this) *I'm really kind of bored with all the ETA movement criticism in relation to price*, 'brilliance' or accuracy. ETA movements are worked on (to a lesser or greater extent) by nearly all that used them. The best example of making improvements to this ebauche was IWC (I think from recollection and study on the subject a long time ago?) So *not all ETA are the same as another ETA *- It's just the 'starting point' for many that put them in the casing. *In addition the movement is accurate, robust and cheap to service. So I have a lovely ALS, a Patek or two etc and love them too - but never at the expense of being an ETA snob, which in my opinion gets far too much noise on this forum by some who should know better.*
> 
> Hublot are more and more acceptable to me - the more I learn about them.


AMEN !!!


----------



## jforozco

shnjb said:


> I'm 30 and I like all three too.
> Too bad I can't afford all those


I am 31 and I also like all 3! Not being funny, I am 31! I also love Journe, I think everyone knows this already though! I have found that I am a fan of both big sporty and thing and classic, as long as they are high end (whatever that means!)


----------



## shnjb

jforozco said:


> I am 31 and I also like all 3! Not being funny, I am 31! I also love Journe, I think everyone knows this already though! I have found that I am a fan of both big sporty and thing and classic, as long as they are high end (whatever that means!)


wow. 
love your watch collection.
did you recently buy all those?


----------



## NitrousOxide

Steelhead said:


> That thing they do with making the hands the same color as the dial, that annoys me. It's like they're saying "reading the time is not the most important thing here."


Hilarious and spot-on!

Reasons why I dont click with this company:

1- I consider them ROO copycats.

2- Theres no timelessness in their designs at all - they look more like party jewelries that you'd get rid of the very next day.


----------



## jforozco

jforozco said:


> I am 31 and I also like all 3! Not being funny, I am 31! I also love Journe, I think everyone knows this already though! I have found that I am a fan of both big sporty and thing and classic, as long as they are high end (whatever that means!)


Thanks! The Journe is my last acquisition, and the other two I bough early and mid last year.


----------



## tony20009

Steelhead said:


> *That thing they do with making the hands the same color as the dial, that annoys me.** It's like they're saying "reading the time is not the most important thing here."*


Red:
I'm fine with you so annoyed. For myself, it would take a lot for me to cite the hands as the sole reason I don't like, and thus would deride, an entire brand of watches. I can't think of one time where the hands were the deciding factor between any two watches I was considering. Perhaps I was just considering the wrong two pieces or perhaps my factor-weighting differs from yours....well, I guess it must, for I'm not very much at all annoyed by the hand issue, but on some watches the hands are, I feel, a place where improvement is possible.

FWIW, the hands aren't matched to the dial color; they are open-work hands and one is seeing through them to the dial. To your point, some Hublot watch hands' contrast against the dial does make the time harder to read than other Hublots, or other brands watches.

Blue:
I agree a watch must be readable. Hublot is hardly the first company to offer watches that are hard to read and they certainly don't make the most or least expensive hard-to-read watches. Without even considering brands and specific watches, I know un-lumed silver hands against black dials are all but impossible to read easily in dim, bar/nightclub light.

All the best.

The most pathetic person in the world is some one who has sight but no vision.
- Helen Keller


----------



## entropy96

jforozco said:


> I am 31 and I also like all 3! Not being funny, I am 31! I also love Journe, I think everyone knows this already though! I have found that I am a fan of both big sporty and thing and classic, as long as they are high end (whatever that means!)


I like how the FPJ looks classy and sophiticated and timeless.

Definitely sets it apart from the other two.


----------



## botoxtas

Hublot looks like a stupid ten dollar watch. Plus they sponsor Ferrari F1. Kimi R is way overrated and Alonso tries so hard but couldn't win a race unless somebody crashes and convolutes a safety car in front of him. S. Vettel will struggle.


----------



## Me116

botoxtas said:


> Hublot looks like a stupid ten dollar watch. Plus they sponsor Ferrari F1. Kimi R is way overrated and Alonso tries so hard but couldn't win a race unless somebody crashes and convolutes a safety car in front of him. S. Vettel will struggle.


classy way to bring back a thread...:roll:
Honestly though, from the few I've seen in real life, the entry level ones are somewhat overpriced, but as they get higher end, they've got some great watches, and I've been impressed with the actual quality of all the hublot I've seen. By the way, hublot minute repeaters, after testing, came in second only to the likes of patek philippe. That's a big deal.


----------



## botoxtas

Touché☝


----------



## heuerolexomega

A copy and paste:

And then there is Hublot, who has made an entire career around devaluing the quality of the Offshore, often causing confusion among early watch enthusiasts about which watch came first, and which professional athlete is aligned with which watch. As Hublot consistently raised its prices to compete head to head with the Offshores, consumers in mass began to compare the two, though, in truth, mechanically speaking, there is no comparison. 


That’s the thing about the Offshore, no matter what you think about the people who wear them, or the various styling of them, they are still beautifully made watches with truly top-tier finishing that is not matched by anyone in the oversized, aggressively-styled sports chronograph category – not Hublot with its Big Bang, not Linde Werdelin with its SpidoSpeed, and not Girard-Perregaux with its Chrono Hawk


----------



## Crunchy

I actually like their style but they are just simply too big.


----------



## Richerson

Nothing is over priced, everything sells for what people are willing to pay, I like HUBLOT wathces but they are too big and I can't really afford one. 

I not sure on the amount of models they make, this surely will create a nightmare 20 years down the line when someone of means would like their watch restored the orginal condition, unless HUBLOT like patek make the parts if required. 

i don't understand why people hate any brand, a college in my office wears a Rado which isn't my cup of tea but he loves it and we enjoy talking about watches, if he were to be wearing a HUBLOT Big Bang I wouldn't say to him the negivities of the purchase but congratulat him on a nice watch.


----------



## tony20009

heuerolexomega said:


> A copy and paste:
> 
> And then there is Hublot, who has made an entire career around devaluing the quality of the Offshore, often causing confusion among early watch enthusiasts about which watch came first, and which professional athlete is aligned with which watch. As Hublot consistently raised its prices to compete head to head with the Offshores, consumers in mass began to compare the two, though, in truth, mechanically speaking, there is no comparison.
> 
> That's the thing about the Offshore, no matter what you think about the people who wear them, or the various styling of them, they are still beautifully made watches with truly *top-tier finishing that is not matched by anyone in the oversized, aggressively-styled sports chronograph category* - not Hublot with its Big Bang, not Linde Werdelin with its SpidoSpeed, and not Girard-Perregaux with its Chrono Hawk


Did you copy and paste your own or someone else's statements? I don't know...

What I'm about to write is pedantic, but neither self aggrandizing nor intended to refute (or support) the author's central point that Hublot's "stuff" isn't quite as finely executed as AP's Offshore. I'm just commenting.

Mostly, I agree with the author's thoughts, and by extension, yours. The problem with it, of course, is his claim about the Offshore's finishing. It's not that it's not basically right, but that it must survive the 100% test: it only takes one example to make the statement wrong and time will all but guarantee that it will be made wrong eventually. After all, finishing is just a matter of how far a master watchmaker wants to take it, not whether they can.

I offer the DeWitt Academia and Glorious Knight lines and MB&F's HM2 as examples of a watch that IMO match the Offshore's top-tier finishing. It's hard for me to think of the HM2 as a sport chrono, but it's got plenty of first rate finishing and "over the top-ness" going on.
*
DeWitt*
Academia:








Photo credit: Gary123 - https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/dewitt-academia-chronographe-sequential-799594.html#post5833522









DeWitt Academia Blackstream Chronograph | Total Watch Reviews










Glorious Knight:









*MB&F*








HM2 - Horological Machines - Machines - Maximilian Büsser and Friends

All the best.

It's partly true, too, but it isn't all true. People always think something's all true.
― J.D. Salinger, _The Catcher in the Rye _


----------



## heuerolexomega

Well Tony, is an article from Hodinkee, that funny enough the article is not about Hublot but I thought that the paragraph that mentions Hublot hits right on target how I feel about the brand.
The article is dated today and is about ROC actually.

Cheers 


Sent from the 3 Watches Philosophy Company headquarters


----------



## opticsguy

Two words: "Dallas Cowboys"


----------



## little big feather

I see nothing wrong about Hublot....just nothing I really like.
Can't say about the future.


----------



## shnjb

I like their case designs and interesting use of material.
I just think AP and Richard mille do it much better.


----------



## tony20009

heuerolexomega said:


> Well Tony, is an article from Hodinkee, that funny enough the article is not about Hublot but I thought that the paragraph that mentions Hublot hits right on target how I feel about the brand.
> The article is dated today and is about ROC actually.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sent from the 3 Watches Philosophy Company headquarters


Cool...I just didn't know...I kind of thought it was you copying and pasting something you wrote elsewhere since you didn't attribute it to someone else, but I wasn't sure. It didn't matter who first wrote it, it merely affected whether I would have written "you" or "the writer/author" when referring to the passage. I didn't want to "point the finger," so to speak, at you if they weren't your words, or point to someone else if you did.

TY for the clarification.

All the best.


----------



## tony20009

opticsguy said:


> Two words: "Dallas Cowboys"


Off topic:
Seven words: ...are doing better than the Redskins poorly.

All the best.


----------



## NightScar

Crunchy said:


> I actually like their style but they are just simply too big.


Majority does tend to be too big, huge in fact but the Classic Fusion line is pretty nice with 38mm and 42mm options that are about 10mm in height. That makes it more wearable to many though I could see where many may find it boring as it is pretty much the same design with just different metal combinations.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Can anyone tell me what Hublot is offering that another more established brand with its own original designs (not merely "me-toos") cannot offer at the same or at a lower price point?


----------



## tony20009

HRC-E.B. said:


> Can anyone tell me what Hublot is offering that another more established brand with its own original designs (not merely "me-toos") cannot offer at the same or at a lower price point?


Nobody -- established or not established -- can legally offer any Hublot design, or even one substantively close to it as determined by a court, at any price. That's what branding, patents and trademarks are all about. (Excepting Chinese fake watch producers who obviously get away with offering clones of any design they want.)

Perhaps I don't understand the question....

All the best.


----------



## russianriverkid

I'm not sure of the visceral hatred of watch snobs the world over, I've read reams of sometimes thoughtful invective on aesthetic grounds, but in the main, I think we all over think it. Hublots are for the most part designed to be garish, and thus also for the most part worn by those who value garishness. That's the problem.


----------



## lorsban

Nothing wrong with it. I think most people just like AP better.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

tony20009 said:


> Nobody -- established or not established -- can legally offer any Hublot design, or even one substantively close to it as determined by a court, at any price. That's what branding, patents and trademarks are all about. (Excepting Chinese fake watch producers who obviously get away with offering clones of any design they want.)
> 
> Perhaps I don't understand the question....
> 
> All the best.


Tony,

Apparently, no you don't, but it may be a product of the question itself, so no problem. What I was questioning is whether there was anything distinctive that Hublot offers that isn't already done (better!) elsewhere.

If it's case materials in a high-end watch, doesn't AP do as much/more with its Royal Oak Offshore line, with various ceramics, carbon fibers and other advanced materials? Isn't Richard Mille in a league of its own in terms of cutting-edge materials in the high-end world?

If it's a porthole-inspired watch, to me there is only one: the Royal Oak. Patek was second to market with a similarly-inspired watch, with its Nautilus. Hublot is only third in line, and its design is much more generic, less original and less distinctive than the original Royal Oak. It's merely a me-too.

In terms of movement, they were initially simple re-casers of ETA movements. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but at that kind of price point? Really? Now they have caught on to the "in-house" craze, which only means they are again competing on the same turf as their more established predecessors, offering nothing truly new or distinctive.

Patek, AP, Vacheron, L &S, Rolex, even most brands in the Swatch group have either a strong brand identity, or distinctive features or iconic products of their own. Hublot's most distinctive characteristics are heinously high-prices and a porthole shape that is, as previously mentioned, only third in line, thus completely unoriginal...


----------



## Rdenney

HRC-E.B. said:


> If it's case materials in a high-end watch, doesn't AP do as much/more with its Royal Oak Offshore line, with various ceramics, carbon fibers and other advanced materials? Isn't Richard Mille in a league of its own in terms of cutting-edge materials in the high-end world?
> 
> If it's a porthole-inspired watch, to me there is only one: the Royal Oak. Patek was second to market with a similarly-inspired watch, with its Nautilus. Hublot is only third in line, and its design is much more generic, less original and less distinctive than the original Royal Oak. It's merely a me-too.


Well, one thing they do is offer watches of a similar aesthetic style (but absolutely not the same design) for significantly less money.









This steel Big Bang chronograph can be had for a street price of $11K at Jomashop (!$15K retail). But this Royal Oak Offshore chronograph retails for over $21K, and Jomashop has it for $17,600:









As to one being a copy of the other, I think it would be more fair to say that they are both chasing the same market style. The original Hublot was a porthole concept, but was a quartz watch that looked not much like the original Royal Oak. Or, at least it no more closely resembled the Royal Oak than did other Genta-inspired watches of that type. It was a trend in the industry, and everyone was doing something along those lines. The current Big Bang and Offshores are much more similar to each other than were their ancestors.

The Hublot watches I have handled were impeccably constructed, though with movements of less traditional and more modernistic design and finishing. It's not on a par with AP, but then neither is the price.

Rick "price does matter" Denney


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Rdenney said:


> Well, one thing they do is offer watches of a similar aesthetic style (but absolutely not the same design) for significantly less money.
> 
> View attachment 1660076
> 
> 
> This steel Big Bang chronograph can be had for a street price of $11K at Jomashop (!$15K retail). But this Royal Oak Offshore chronograph retails for over $21K, and Jomashop has it for $17,600:
> 
> View attachment 1660095
> 
> 
> As to one being a copy of the other, I think it would be more fair to say that they are both chasing the same market style. The original Hublot was a porthole concept, but was a quartz watch that looked no much like the original Royal Oak. Or, at least it no more closely resembled the Royal Oak than did other Genta-inspired watches of that type. It was a trend in the industry, and everyone was doing something along those lines. The current Big Bang and Offshores are much more similar to each other than were their ancestors.
> 
> The Hublot watches I have handled were impeccably constructed, though with movements of less traditional and more modernistic design and finishing. It's not on a par with AP, but then neither is the price.
> 
> Rick "price does matter" Denney


Fair points. The one question I can't find a positive answer to is: "why would anyone be willing to pay $11K for a watch that is of a similar aesthetic/market style as a Royal Oak Offshore, yet isn't?"

If it's the style you are after, there ought to be options that don't cost the price of an entry-level high-end watch to acquire. Even if $11K is less money than $17K, it's still a lot of money for a watch whose key attribute is to be of a style similar to another more expensive watch, isn't it?


----------



## NightScar

HRC-E.B. said:


> If it's case materials in a high-end watch, doesn't AP do as much/more with its Royal Oak Offshore line, with various ceramics, carbon fibers and other advanced materials? Isn't Richard Mille in a league of its own in terms of cutting-edge materials in the high-end world?


I think they are on par with AP I also think Hublot offers different type of materials/metals that AP doesn't. I amnot 100% sure but I believe Hublot holds some patents to the mixture of new materials and metals they use.

Also, doesn't Richard Mille cost 5x-10x-20x more than most Hublots? Isn't an entry level Hublot is a fraction of a price of an entry level RM?



HRC-E.B. said:


> If it's a porthole-inspired watch, to me there is only one: the Royal Oak. Patek was second to market with a similarly-inspired watch, with its Nautilus. Hublot is only third in line, and its design is much more generic, less original and less distinctive than the original Royal Oak. It's merely a me-too.


A persons preferred style/design is subjective. I personally like Hublots design better, was just never a fan of ROs octagonal bezel. You say more generic, I say much more simple and more subtle (in terms of classic fusion at least). I would't say it is less original either, the original Hublots were very distinctive from the Royal Oaks and when they started, they used the porthole as an inspiration but tried to separate themselves as much as possible including being the first to use a rubber strap. Based on the original designs, the two are easier to tell apart (though I don't have a problem telling a modern RO/ROO to the Big Bang either).



HRC-E.B. said:


> In terms of movement, they were initially simple re-casers of ETA movements. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but at that kind of price point? Really? Now they have caught on to the "in-house" craze, which only means they are again competing on the same turf as their more established predecessors, offering nothing truly new or distinctive.


I think Hublot does offer something new and distinctive in terms of movements. I mean sure if you really nit pick the movements to the bones I am sure you can trace it back to some other brands design or function but that is to be expected if you are developing something much later in the game. At least they made the effort to make in-house movements now instead of sticking with nothing but ETAs.

I am not a movement expert but check out their movements/complications here and maybe others can chime in on what they are offering: http://www.hublot.com/en/movements



HRC-E.B. said:


> Patek, AP, Vacheron, L &S, Rolex, even most brands in the Swatch group have either a strong brand identity, or distinctive features or iconic products of their own. Hublot's most distinctive characteristics are heinously high-prices and a porthole shape that is, as previously mentioned, only third in line, thus completely unoriginal...


Hublot does have distinct characteristics, nothing out there really looks like Hublot. And in the past decade, the brand has carved out some sort of niche and that is why they have become very successful in a short period of time.

Again looks are subjective and yes you can trace some similarities to the RO but they are still completely different, you hold both at the same time and you won't confuse the two. I don't even think you can confuse the two from 15-20 feet away as long as you are familiar with the brand and their design. Plus the similarities doesn't make RO better to everyone, there will be some who prefers the Hublot.


----------



## NightScar

HRC-E.B. said:


> Fair points. The one question I can't find a positive answer to is: "why would anyone be willing to pay $11K for a watch that is of a similar aesthetic/market style as a Royal Oak Offshore, yet isn't?"
> 
> If it's the style you are after, there ought to be options that don't cost the price of an entry-level high-end watch to acquire. Even if $11K is less money than $17K, it's still a lot of money for a watch whose key attribute is to be of a style similar to another more expensive watch, isn't it?


Simple answer, because one prefers one look/style/design over the other. The argument would be more valid if the two looks exactly the same but it really isn't.


----------



## tony20009

HRC-E.B. said:


> Fair points. The one question I can't find a positive answer to is: "*why would anyone be willing to pay $11K for a watch that is of a similar aesthetic/market style as a Royal Oak Offshore, yet isn't?*"
> 
> If it's the style you are after, there ought to be options that don't cost the price of an entry-level high-end watch to acquire. Even if $11K is less money than $17K, it's still a lot of money for a watch whose key attribute is to be of a style similar to another more expensive watch, isn't it?



Because a 17.5-11 = 6.5, and 6.5 > 50% of 11...a consumer looking to spend ~$10K or less might very well spend $11K, but almost certainly won't spend $17K. (That's not even considering what they can afford; it's about having a budget and sticking to it.)
Because for them, the name AP is neither better nor worse than the name Hublot.
Because they like specific Hublot design and don't like the AP one as much.
Because they like both designs and see them as similar, but don't like the AP one $6.5K more than they like the Hublot design.
Because they feel "good enough" is good enough, and they don't feel compelled to spend more for "better," that is assuming they even believe that spending more will get them "better," which in itself is not a foregone conclusion for many consumers.
Because they were offered a better deal on the Hublot than on the AP.
Because the Hublot sales associate was more effective, personable, etc. than the AP salesperson.
Because when they looked at them side-by-side, they couldn't discern any substantive differences between the two watches.

So there are eight reasons. I'm sure there are more just as I'm sure you could have identified those eight despite your stated incredulity. As for which ones are positive reasons in favor of an Hublot, well....

#1 is a positive impact on one's bank balance...that's a positive effect that carries a lot of weight. LOL
#3 is just a plain old positive reason, as is #5, and #8.
I could conceivably have stated each reason in positive terms or negative terms. Most folks could do so as well in composing a comparative analysis of the pros and cons that apply to and motivate action regarding any two alternatives. AFAIK, when it comes to watch choices, the only irrefutably positive assertion is, "I like this one better." At the end of the day, all the "whys" and "wherefores" don't matter....heck, the buyer doesn't even need to have what you or I might deem a "good" reason for their conclusion.

Off Topic:
I would have happily bought my middle son a (an?) Hublot. He wanted an APRO, and for the life of me, I don't really understand why, particularly since he'd by then worn mine more than I had. I know what he told me, but I don't really think even he believed some of what he said, and I know didn't believe all of what he said.

I wanted to buy him damn near any other watch he wanted besides the RO, but he really wanted the RO, so that's what he got. We'll see what he says when it's time to have it serviced. I'm betting he'll say something like, "Dad, I need some money. The maintenance on this thing costs more than to have my car serviced and the car cost twice as much." ;-) You know my response, because I'm his father, will be a form of "I told you so"...perhaps something like, "I told you be careful of what you ask for..." LOL

All the best.


----------



## tony20009

NightScar said:


> ...
> I am not a movement expert but check out their movements/complications here and maybe others can chime in on what they are offering: http://www.hublot.com/en/movements
> ...


I'm not either, but this is probably a good place to start looking for "scoop" about Hublot's watchmaking processes and infrastructure: 
http://www.hautetime.com/hublot-transforms-as-a-true-watch-manufacture/3621/

Here is another, but bear in mind that this source is almost certainly intended to promote Hublot rather than to give an independent perspective: http://www.hublotnation.com/category/know-how

As far as Hublot and innovation, they have some, but if one doesn't look for them, one won't know of them: 
http://revo-online.com/hublot-unvei...ia-as-a-worlds-first-at-their-premiere-event/
Baselworld 2014: Hublot dazzles with new innovations

All the best.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Well, apparently, the Hublot brand has its fans, as NightScar and Tony aptly demonstrate, which is all the better for Hublot I guess.

On the personal preference side of things, there is simply nothing to argue. Your preferences are as good as mine.

I just find that objectively, there simply isn't enough on offer to justify the prices. In my post above, when I questioned why anyone would pay $11K for a ROO look-alike, I was suggesting between the lines that if a look-alike is what you want, you should get that for less than $1,000, not $11k...

That being said, if someone actually PREFERS the Hublot design over an AP, power to them. If they find the value proposition acceptable from an objective standpoint to justify the purchase (I don't), all the better for them too. I know of too many $10-15K iconic, time-proven (pardon the pun) watches that I would love to own to even consider a Hublot at that price point.

I was under the impression that there were some objective elements behind that sentiment beyond mere personal preference, but looks like Tony disagrees.


----------



## mark1958

In my opinion Hublot is a brand--- photos of the products look so much better than the real thing. I remember the first time i saw Hublot offerings in a store after looking at various images online--- I was disappointed. That is just my 2c.


----------



## NightScar

HRC-E.B. said:


> Well, apparently, the Hublot brand has its fans, as NightScar and Tony aptly demonstrate, which is all the better for Hublot I guess.
> 
> On the personal preference side of things, there is simply nothing to argue. Your preferences are as good as mine.
> 
> I just find that objectively, there simply isn't enough on offer to justify the prices. In my post above, when I questioned why anyone would pay $11K for a ROO look-alike, I was suggesting between the lines that if a look-alike is what you want, you should get that for less than $1,000, not $11k...
> 
> That being said, if someone actually PREFERS the Hublot design over an AP, power to them. If they find the value proposition acceptable from an objective standpoint to justify the purchase (I don't), all the better for them too. I know of too many $10-15K iconic, time-proven (pardon the pun) watches that I would love to own to even consider a Hublot at that price point.
> 
> I was under the impression that there were some objective elements behind that sentiment beyond mere personal preference, but looks like Tony disagrees.


It's not even about being a fan of the brand, I tried to answer or make my rebuttal as objective as possible but there are definitely certain things that will slide to the side of subjective such as looks and style. I mean how can you tell someone they are wrong for liking one thing and disagreeing with yours? It's not like we are saying you are wrong in liking APs better, we are simply saying not everyone feels the same way.

As you can see, you simply asked a question and they were answered. You asked what movements and innovations they created and Tony posted proof, I also posted a bunch of the movements they created and not just merely ETA.

You asked about cases and materials Hublot has to offer that are distinct, again Tonys link proves they have a new material that was never used before. Plus Hublot was the first to use rubber straps which RO later adapted. If you're going to deduct a point from Hublot for supposedly copying APs porthole design, then you got to deduct some point from AP for RO adapting the rubber strap that Hublot started. A rubber strap that is heavily used in the watch world today, you can't say that isn't innovative, got to give credit where credit is due.

If you like watches, you don't even have to be a fan of Hublot to at least see what they have done. They have created some innovative and new things and aren't just running around selling eta movements for a premium, at least not anymore.

Price justifications differ from person to person too. If one had millions and simply like the Hublot style then they may not give a damn it sports an eta movement. Hell if a college guy saved up for 5 years to get himself a classic fusion with a modified eta for $5k that is his prerogative. You choose to justify your purchase on things that doesn't favor Hublot, that is fine but that isn't exactly an objective point of view too if you do not consider others as well.

Again if you like Royal Oaks design better, then that is fine but it is a subjective opinion and others will differ. As for the other points, well it seems like you are just ignoring it because it kind of proves your points invalid and tells us that we can't be objectionable about the subject? So I don't really know what to tell you.


----------



## Snuggie

I am genuinely surprised that this thread has not been booted out from the High End Forum as Hublot is not even close to being a high end brand. Don't quite understand the logic.


----------



## J-H-M

Snuggie said:


> I am genuinely surprised that this thread has not been booted out from the High End Forum as Hublot is not even close to being a high end brand. Don't quite understand the logic.


And why is that?


----------



## J-H-M

HRC-E.B. said:


> I just find that objectively, there simply isn't enough on offer to justify the prices. In my post above, when I questioned why anyone would pay $11K for a ROO look-alike, I was suggesting between the lines that if a look-alike is what you want, you should get that for less than $1,000, not $11k...


They don't even look a bit the same in my humble opinion. AP ROO and HBB are two complete different watches. AP has a 8 angle bezel vs. HBB a round one. AP case is solid HBB has a 3 layer case. Hublot dial has different numbers, etc. etc. Omega (and lot's of round bezel watches) would more be a Rolex look-alike than Hublot is AP. I think Hublot is in it's own league, and I like it .


----------



## lorsban

I used to be a hardcore AP fan but now I'd rather get a used IWC Ingenieur 3227 at $4-5,000. Than spend more than $10k on either an AP or Hublot.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

NightScar said:


> It's not even about being a fan of the brand, I tried to answer or make my rebuttal as objective as possible but there are definitely certain things that will slide to the side of subjective such as looks and style. I mean how can you tell someone they are wrong for liking one thing and disagreeing with yours? It's not like we are saying you are wrong in liking APs better, we are simply saying not everyone feels the same way.
> 
> As you can see, you simply asked a question and they were answered. You asked what movements and innovations they created and Tony posted proof, I also posted a bunch of the movements they created and not just merely ETA.
> 
> You asked about cases and materials Hublot has to offer that are distinct, again Tonys link proves they have a new material that was never used before. Plus Hublot was the first to use rubber straps which RO later adapted. If you're going to deduct a point from Hublot for supposedly copying APs porthole design, then you got to deduct some point from AP for RO adapting the rubber strap that Hublot started. A rubber strap that is heavily used in the watch world today, you can't say that isn't innovative, got to give credit where credit is due.
> 
> If you like watches, you don't even have to be a fan of Hublot to at least see what they have done. They have created some innovative and new things and aren't just running around selling eta movements for a premium, at least not anymore.
> 
> Price justifications differ from person to person too. If one had millions and simply like the Hublot style then they may not give a damn it sports an eta movement. Hell if a college guy saved up for 5 years to get himself a classic fusion with a modified eta for $5k that is his prerogative. You choose to justify your purchase on things that doesn't favor Hublot, that is fine but that isn't exactly an objective point of view too if you do not consider others as well.
> 
> Again if you like Royal Oaks design better, then that is fine but it is a subjective opinion and others will differ. As for the other points, well it seems like you are just ignoring it because it kind of proves your points invalid and tells us that we can't be objectionable about the subject? So I don't really know what to tell you.


I think that, again, either I did not make my point clearly enough (thought I did) or you didn't understand it (nothing wrong in that per se, but please don't kick the messenger when he's down). What I said is I thought there were objective reasons for my general dislike of the Hublot brand, but it appears all my reasons are subjective, as you pointed out. Fair enough.


----------



## NightScar

My fault if I misread. 

No offense intended.


----------



## tobytobes

the ad for hulblot here in basel where i live had a full on sale with 40 or 50 percent off most models a few months ago. says it all about u blow


----------



## Chronopolis

.


----------



## tony20009

HRC-E.B. said:


> I think that, again, either I did not make my point clearly enough (thought I did) or you didn't understand it (nothing wrong in that per se, but please don't kick the messenger when he's down). What I said is I thought there were objective reasons for my general dislike of the Hublot brand, but it appears all my reasons are subjective, as you pointed out. Fair enough.


You keep mentioning these "objective reasons." Would you please give us an enumeration of what the objective measures and corresponding reasons are that you have in mind and that you assert we repeatedly overlook? I don't recall seeing you do that. If you did, I'm sorry I've forgotten and I don't know what post has it. Just point me to the post that has them.

(I consider this an "old" thread that got resurrected...Lord only knows why. Be that as it may, it's my thread, so the least I can do I participate in the discussion.)

All the best.


----------



## TormonRN

"They utilize a variety of pop culture and sports figures as spokespersons such as Depeche Mode, Kobe Bryant and Jay Z."

This is the only part I don't like so much. It reminds me of Beats headphones. Beats are overpriced garbage and use famous people for marketing. I do like Hublot and they do have some nice designs like the classic fusion and some Big Bangs that I even plan on purchasing myself. They have a bold look.


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

I far prefer their partnerships with artists, in particular the Carlos Cruz Diez editions have a clever mechanical implementation of his chromo-Interference artwork in the dial. Of course, you can't use it to tell the time but as multi-colored watches go, it's quite interesting


----------



## Pisquare

Annie Hall.



Chronopolis said:


> But this is contradictory, given how much of the dislike is supposedly based on their design, and association / connotation - namely, a "rich man's Invicta."
> 
> Anything one does NOT like, does NOT wish to buy, is, by definition, over-priced, no?
> And if not, then that means one WOULD/COULD consider buying one, if the price were lower.
> And that means, the "complaint" about their "fugliness," and the "vulgarity" of those "poseurs" who wear them has no foundation whatsoever.
> 
> A bit like Woody Allen complaining (I forget which movie): "The food is awful, and portions are small too!"


----------



## tony20009

TormonRN said:


> "They utilize a variety of pop culture and sports figures as spokespersons such as *Depeche Mode, Kobe Bryant and Jay Z.*"
> 
> *This is the only part I don't like so much. *It reminds me of Beats headphones. Beats are overpriced garbage and use famous people for marketing. I do like Hublot and they do have some nice designs like the classic fusion and some Big Bangs that I even plan on purchasing myself. They have a bold look.


Okay...you are entitled to not like the partnerships.

Out of curiosity, what about them is objectionable to you? You equate Hublot's goods to "garbage." What specific traits qualify the watch as "garbage?" (Asking you because you wrote that you like some Hublot watches, so I presume you've looked closely into the company and their products/fabrication methods, and based on that assumption, I anticipate a rational reply, as opposed to a largely emotional one.)

As for the three celebrity partnerships you noted:


Depeche Mode -- Partnered with Hublot to raise money for Charity: Water via a 250 watch limited edition watch design. The watch itself is rather bold looking to say the least, but the look of the watch isn't the point; the charity money raised is the point. Have you never bought a raffle ticket that would, if you won, provide you with something you have no desire to actually own, but you participated all the same for the sake of supporting the charity?
Kobe Bryant -- This deal is a straightforward brand endorsement. The point of endorsements is to attract new customers. Existing customers have no reason to care who endorses the product; they already decided on their own, absent the endorsement, that it merited their buying it. The product doesn't change because someone endorses it.
Jay Z -- Good lord. The man is a fully legitimate businessman. Indeed, at this point, he's more businessman than rapper. He's brand director for Budweiser, co-owner of a basketball team and a soccer team, producer of a video game, a winemaker, a clothing manufacturer, philanthropist, and more. Born and raised in a Brooklyn public housing development, he's parlayed his talents into a multi-million dollar fortune that makes him among the most successful people in the U.S. He's quite literally the epitome of the American Dream. What is there to "poo poo" about the guy? Does the guy go around punching old ladies or something?

All the best.


----------



## Romulux

In a not-so-parallel universe of sneakers, I don't get the Adidas-Yeezy craze. I think it's an ugly shoe hyped up with very limited distribution and marketing. Obtaining one, let alone wearing one, has become a status symbol and bragging rights.
But that doesn't make me hate Adidas. To me their running, training, and basketball shoes designs are still better and cleaner compared to others in the market.

Speaking of Jay-Z, he recently wore his Rose Gold Tribute to 1931 Reverso while watching a Warriors game. That's an excellent choice.


----------



## imperio

I find it amusing how the OP attaches some seemingly random quote to the end of some posts - don't quite see what the point of that is apart from having a dig at those he disagrees with.

All the best.

TY.

Once again TY.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mharris660

Just my opinion but those are some of the ugliest watches I've ever seen and I've seen Invicta watches. Probably not the response you were looking for.


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

What is the level of hand work that goes into their watches? I have read a few articles saying everything is made in-house these days, hand-assembled and finished. If we attribute some value by the amount of movement decoration then, their finishing doesn't seem to involve much work compared to other brands offerings at a similar price point (from looks at least). If it does, then it certainly isn't expressed in a traditional way.
Is there anything out of the ordinary in the case manufacturing or materials? I don't see any super-hard exotic composites a la Richard Mille listed. Are there specific 'difficult' manufacturing details on the case that I am missing?
I can see that they wouldn't appeal to a buyer with a taste for traditional finishing but even for a modern watch, I can't really see where the value is "made up for" in other areas. Take De Bethune for example, their designs are very modern but there is still a considerable amount of work that goes into movement design, blued steel, guilloche and case finishing. A lot of hand crafting but expressed in a different way.


----------



## Liquid360

Some of them are most def not my style, but I think they make some wicked good timepieces. I'm FAR happier with my Hublot than I was with my Rolex DSSD.









I am N8


----------



## Romulux

2muchtimeonmyhands said:


> What is the level of hand work that goes into their watches? I have read a few articles saying everything is made in-house these days, hand-assembled and finished. If we attribute some value by the amount of movement decoration then, their finishing doesn't seem to involve much work compared to other brands offerings at a similar price point (from looks at least). If it does, then it certainly isn't expressed in a traditional way.
> Is there anything out of the ordinary in the case manufacturing or materials? I don't see any super-hard exotic composites a la Richard Mille listed. Are there specific 'difficult' manufacturing details on the case that I am missing?
> I can see that they wouldn't appeal to a buyer with a taste for traditional finishing but even for a modern watch, I can't really see where the value is "made up for" in other areas. Take De Bethune for example, their designs are very modern but there is still a considerable amount of work that goes into movement design, blued steel, guilloche and case finishing. A lot of hand crafting but expressed in a different way.


Interesting you mentioned RM and De Bethune. Both are playing at multiple price points of a "regular" Hublot Big Bang.

As *edit: RDenney, not tony*mentioned earlier, an entry level Big Bang is roughly half the price of an entry level AP ROO Chrono. And this is the most common comparison people make. JC Biver is flattered that Hublot keeps getting mentioned and compared with AP, or even RM now. I think if we are looking at edgy, bold, futuristic design, Hublot offers the best bang per buck (pun not intended).

Let's see what else is in the market for about $10-15K. The closest I can get is probably the IWC Ingenieur line, which is not exactly the line that defines IWC the best (vs the pilot, the Portuguese).

In terms of innovation, they have the Magic Gold Hublot To Offer Scratch Resistant "Magic Gold" Watches | aBlogtoWatch
More materials 5 Materials That Make Hublot An Innovative Horological Force
In the haute horology department they won the 2014 GPHG Best Minute Repeater Classic Fusion Cathedral Tourbillon Minute Repeater | GPHG


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

Ok wasn't aware of Magic Gold, King gold, Hublonium (love the names). They seem to be positioning themselves as a cheaper version of RM


----------



## tony20009

imperio said:


> I find it amusing how the OP attaches some seemingly random quote to the end of some posts - don't quite see what the point of that is apart from having a dig at those he disagrees with.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> TY.
> 
> Once again TY.


FWIW, the quotes I place in my posts are generally neither random nor digs at anyone or anything. If you care to view them as such, I can't stop you.

All the best.

P.S./Edit:
Few readers will wonder if I've taken a "dig" at someone. If I am, there will be no doubt in one's mind that I have done so. LOL For example: https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/i-p...ed-do-you-agree-post-1093513.html#post8453915 .


----------



## Watchbreath

One of the favorites among bash brands with 'snob wannabes' on watch forums.


----------



## KeithNYC

Late to this thread, but I would cite every picture you posted in the original post as "what is so wrong about Hublot". Yikes. 
All juvenile interpretations of styles by AP, Rolex, IWC, etc.


----------



## tony20009

Liquid360 said:


> Some of them are most def not my style, but I think they make some wicked good timepieces. I'm FAR happier with my Hublot than I was with my Rolex DSSD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am N8


That's a mighty sporty lookin' watch. I didn't even know Hublot offer a BB or KP (not sure which that is or whether it's something of a fusion of the two) that also isn't a chrono. Nice find. I'm sure you enjoy that one quite a lot.

All the best.

P.S./Edit:
I guess I should have known for I pasted one in the OP. I reality, I was just trying to grab some photos for the sake of the post and didn't pay to much attention to what the models were. Of the one I pasted in the OP, I just thought, "okay, it's green and that's a bit 'out there,' but it's nice looking otherwise." Seeing your black one, I am pleased to find that my senses are consistent across color variants.
- T


----------



## ilitig8

imperio said:


> I find it amusing how the OP attaches some seemingly random quote to the end of some posts - don't quite see what the point of that is apart from having a dig at those he disagrees with.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> TY.
> 
> Once again TY.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I have always found Tony's quotes quite insightful and germane to the concurrent post, that said if someone does not "get" the majority of them they could come across as a non sequitur.


----------



## ilitig8

Every forum I have ever been on seems to require some universally disliked, dare I say hated, brand or individual. Interesting poor ole Bernie shares the same universal hate on F1 forums. Many of those that love F1 forget F1 might not even exist today without Bernie and almost certainly not in a form that shares such a huge worldwide audience. 

I have been fortunate to own a ton of watch brands and recently decided to try out Hublot, if for no other reason than to be a contrarian. I admit I went conservative and did not jump in the deep end with Hublot and bought a 38mm Classic Fusion. Being a rather "small" Hublot and rather conservative I got a great deal from my AD since he owed me a favor for a deal gone bad. For what I paid for it I think it is a great watch, maybe not the greatest value but I like it, I haven't added Hublot to my brands I currently own list in my signature because my wife has a serious eye on it, if it stays in my box I will add it and "own" it, if she decides she prefers it to the Chanel she has been eyeing it will go in her box. 

In the end Hublot has never had a chance with the WIS for multiple reasons, in the end it gives a brand in the mid to haute hologerie arena for the majority to dismiss.


----------



## HiggsBoson

Absolutely nothing!
I think Hublot have quite a distinctive look and for that reason, you either love or loath them.
For example, I'm a Rolex, Omega & Grand Seiko owner, however, I don't like all the watches in the ranges of all
of those three manufacturers.
Take Rolex as an example, I own a DSSD which I love, however, some watches in the Rolex range are, in my opinion,
horrible looking.....but some buyers will love them. ;-)


----------



## tony20009

ilitig8 said:


> I have always found Tony's quotes quite insightful and germane to the concurrent post, that said if someone does not "get" the majority of them they could come across as a non sequitur.


TY. I appreciate your saying that.

All the best.


----------



## tony20009

ilitig8 said:


> Every forum I have ever been on seems to require some universally disliked, dare I say hated, brand or individual. Interesting poor ole Bernie shares the same universal hate on F1 forums. Many of those that love F1 forget F1 might not even exist today without Bernie and almost certainly not in a form that shares such a huge worldwide audience.
> 
> I have been fortunate to own a ton of watch brands and recently decided to try out Hublot, if for no other reason than to be a contrarian. I admit I went conservative and did not jump in the deep end with Hublot and bought a 38mm Classic Fusion. Being a rather "small" Hublot and rather conservative I got a great deal from my AD since he owed me a favor for a deal gone bad. For what I paid for it I think it is a great watch, maybe not the greatest value but I like it, I haven't added Hublot to my brands I currently own list in my signature because my wife has a serious eye on it, if it stays in my box I will add it and "own" it, if she decides she prefers it to the Chanel she has been eyeing it will go in her box.
> 
> In the end Hublot has never had a chance with the WIS for multiple reasons, in the end it gives a brand in the mid to haute hologerie arena for the majority to dismiss.


Re: F1:
Let's not kid ourselves. Ads targeted at the F1 world aren't generally meant to appeal to "people" in general. I'm sure F1 has fans and devotees across the social spectrum, but the "players" and "relevant" fans of F1 are as good a target market as one can reasonably ask for. F1 "regulars" live a lifestyle that most people only dream of, that is if they can conceive of it to that degree. If one can successfully curry the F1 crowd's discretionary spending favor, one is going to be quite profitable.

All the best.

F1 Monte Carlo:










F1 Rocks Party










F1 Austin


----------



## Dapuma

My first introduction to the brand: They used to be Manchester United's sponsor so I took a look at their United watch. I looked the watch and figured it would be a fun watch, maybe $500-$1000 based on how it looked...then i saw the price. I am not sure how someone would pay so much for such an ugly time piece, also they look like the AP RO which is also hideous - I do not understand the appeal of Hublot or AP RO or the PP Nautilus


----------



## tony20009

Dapuma said:


> My first introduction to the brand: They used to be Manchester United's sponsor so I took a look at their United watch. I looked the watch and figured it would be a fun watch, maybe $500-$1000 based on how it looked...then i saw the price. I am not sure how someone would pay so much for such an ugly time piece, also they look like the AP RO which is also hideous - *I do not understand the appeal of Hublot or AP RO or the PP Nautilus*


Given your distaste for their looks, combined with each watch's high price, your failing to "get" the appeal of those watches is understandable. Indeed, I'd would think you "batsh*t crazy" were you to buy any of them given your stated feelings about them. I, however, happen to like the styling of several Hublot models and that of the RO and Nautilus. Of course, there are folks who think I'm "batsh*t crazy" for spending that kind of money (or even half as much) on any watch, regardless of how handsome they find the RO, Nautilus, or any other watch I own or might consider owning. My father is one of those people. LOL

All the best.

It must be nice to have more money than sense.
-- Tony20009's father


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

Dapuma said:


> My first introduction to the brand: They used to be Manchester United's sponsor so I took a look at their United watch.


That should really be enough to dissuade anyone from buying one


----------



## tony20009

2muchtimeonmyhands said:


> That should really be enough to dissuade anyone from buying one


LOL!!!

Chelsea fan, are you? LOL

All the best.


----------



## omeglycine

2muchtimeonmyhands said:


> That should really be enough to dissuade anyone from buying one


Here in the States, up until maybe 15 years ago (probably less than 15, actually), if you were into the Premier League and wanted to actually be able to watch the club you support more than once in a blue moon (just threw up a bit in my mouth typing those two words), your choices were United, Arsenal, and Liverpool. At any point in history, easy decision, but particularly in the mid 90s with an exciting young group of British players coming through.

GGMU!


----------



## Dapuma

omeglycine said:


> Here in the States, up until maybe 15 years ago (probably less than 15, actually), if you were into the Premier League and wanted to actually be able to watch the club you support more than once in a blue moon (just threw up a bit in my mouth typing those two words), your choices were United, Arsenal, and Liverpool. At any point in history, easy decision, but particularly in the mid 90s with an exciting young group of British players coming through.
> 
> GGMU!


ha blue moon, at least the scousers did not win the league cup

I was at OT this year vs Liverpool, it was the game right after David De Gea stayed, the roar for him was deafening

Rashford is playing out of his skull, if he can keep it up for a couple more games so Martial can recover, hopefully we stick with the 4-1-4-1 and give Mata and Herrerra the freedom in the center of the park

Bulova is Manchester United's new watch sponsor, they don't particularly have interesting Man Utd watches either, however at least they are at a reasonable price point for something ugly


----------



## omeglycine

Dapuma said:


> ha blue moon, at least the scousers did not win the league cup
> 
> I was at OT this year vs Liverpool, it was the game right after David De Gea stayed, the roar for him was deafening
> 
> Rashford is playing out of his skull, if he can keep it up for a couple more games so Martial can recover, hopefully we stick with the 4-1-4-1 and give Mata and Herrerra the freedom in the center of the park
> 
> Bulova is Manchester United's new watch sponsor, they don't particularly have interesting Man Utd watches either, however at least they are at a reasonable price point for something ugly


Agree with all points above, apart from Mata. But I suppose I'll have to make due until Mou sells him in the summer. 

It's been a few years since I was last at OT. That day we beat West Brom 2-0 and tried in vain to persuade Pogba to stay by singing his name from the moment he came on until the final whistle.

Sorry for going off-topic. When it comes to Hublot, I have always found the basic Classic Fusion to be an attractive watch with very nice casework. Unfortunately, even at GM prices it is priced above more compelling options, like the Ingenieur.


----------



## schrop

I like some of what they do styling-wise; as just two examples the all-black Foudroyante was cool, and I like the relatively recent denim-strapped and denim-dialed watch - call me crazy.

And the prices, well, sky high, but so are competitors. 

The problem for me? Case thickness and to a lesser degree size. End of story.


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

tony20009 said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Chelsea fan, are you? LOL
> 
> All the best.


I'll refrain from sharing who I support for fear of retribution



omeglycine said:


> Here in the States, up until maybe 15 years ago (probably less than 15, actually), if you were into the Premier League and wanted to actually be able to watch the club you support more than once in a blue moon (just threw up a bit in my mouth typing those two words), your choices were United, Arsenal, and Liverpool. At any point in history, easy decision, but particularly in the mid 90s with an exciting young group of British players coming through.
> 
> GGMU!


Man U had a reputation in England as being "The team that foreigners support", I suppose this explains why. That position has now been taken by Chelsea


----------



## Berklife

I think I can correct some of you on this forum. While the non-Hublot chronograph movements may be Eta, the non-Hublot, non-chronograph movements are manufactured by Sellita. 
Eventually, I'm guessing that, Hublot will manufacture all of its own movements. The UNICO is a fine movement. It should be noted, as some of you mentioned, there are plenty of high end manufactures that continue to use movements that are not theirs in their lower end pieces. It isn't a crime. Eventually, when Eta is no longer required to supply movements to other manufactures, they'll be forced to make their own, buy others, or cease to exist. 
I do take offense at even putting AP in the same league as many other manufactures. AP is right at the top along with PP. Lange, VC, and Breguet are just a hair below. However, I might place Lange and VC on the same level depending on my mood.


----------



## Tony Panerai

I had a 48mm big bang rose gold and I loved it. Felt large and in charge when wearing it. I recently sold all my watches to buy a high high end Panerai. I had an incredibly hard time finding a buyer for the Hublot. Even then I got much less than asking.


----------



## douglastimemachines

Mayweather.


----------



## Matthall

Kevin_Lomax said:


> ...The problem I could see is that the buyers you target with those kind of watches are not very loyal to a brand. So there's a risk that the popularity could drop pretty quick. I think you need some more classic models to avoid that. ...


This is a very good point, and one which I will share evidence of after a recent visit to a Jewellers near Manchester and speaking to the co-owner.

When Hublot sponsored United, the shop sold more Hublots than any other brand, helped by the players showing their gifted pieces off on social media.

However, when the sponsorship ended and the brand was less advertised on said platforms, the shop couldn't sell enough watches per month to maintain AD status for Hublot. So they no longer stock them.


----------



## Spangles

__
http://instagr.am/p/BJf91oxAaxL/


----------



## blansky

Possibly it's the over marketing and bombardment of Brand Ambassadors and special editions. They've had more partners than Wilt Chamberlain.

It's like a Kardashian Komplex. Too much exposure. Literally.


----------

