# Which Watch Brands Belong in the High-End Forum? Which Ones Do Not?



## TK-421

doesn't it seem like there are certain brands that are brought up here, but should not be?

is TAG Heuer a "high-end" watch? i like omega, but is it "high-end"? i have an IWC, but i don't think i would consider it high-end.

i wouldn't expect any arguing about Lange or Patek. any others?

just interested to see what brands people think belong or don't belong here.


----------



## Watchbreath

Omega and IWC - yes. They make high end lines.


----------



## lvt

Watchbreath said:


> Omega and IWC - yes. They make high end lines.


+1

The AT with the annual calendar complication is definitely a high-end watch in my book |>


----------



## Beyond_Time

Except entry level Pilot and Portifino models. All other IWC watches are considered high-end.
For Omega, all models with the new Calibre 8XXX are high-end. Tag Heure is not a high-end brand.
however I think they have one model with Zenith Chronograph movement. That's definitely high-end. 
and many others JLC Rolex Piaget ......


----------



## Tick Talk

If I first try to analyse the question, I'm left to ask what does "high-end" actually mean. High price, high horlogerie, or both (they are directly related I think)? Nowadays many medium priced brands feature a high-end model for advertising and prestige. Often these special models are designed and manufactured by specialist outside firms. I would judge each individual model for its merits in terms of horological value, rather than buy into the halo-effect of saying an entire brand is "high-end" because of its show pieces.


----------



## TK-421

i think both. high price and high horlogerie.



Tick Talk said:


> If I first try to analyse the question, I'm left to ask what does "high-end" actually mean. High price, high horlogerie, or both (they are directly related I think)? Nowadays many medium priced brands feature a high-end model for advertising and prestige. Often these special models are designed and manufactured by specialist outside firms. I would judge each individual model for its merits in terms of horological value, rather than buy into the halo-effect of saying an entire brand is "high-end" because of its show pieces.


----------



## aznseank

I agree with beyond time to some degree. While brand is important when classifying watches into categories, at times, certain models are exceptions. This is just my own opinion.

My criteria are follows:

History (contributions to watch making)
Price
Complication
Finish
Design
Public Awareness

Patek, VC, AP , Breguet, Lange, BP <---all high end

UN, JLC, IWC, Rolex, Zenith <---- most are high ends (95% of the models)

Chronoswiss, Panerai <--- (70% high end.. this is where it starts to get weird)

Omega, TAG <--- (5% are high ends)


----------



## Watchbreath

Much of the history is bull manure that comes out of marketing, kinda like lipstick.


aznseank said:


> I agree with beyond time to some degree. While brand is important when classifying watches into categories, at times, certain models are exceptions. This is just my own opinion.
> 
> My criteria are follows:
> 
> History (contributions to watch making)
> Price
> Complication
> Finish
> Design
> Public Awareness
> 
> Patek, VC, AP , Breguet, Lange, BP <---all high end
> 
> UN, JLC, IWC, Rolex, Zenith <---- most are high ends (95% of the models)
> 
> Chronoswiss, Panerai <--- (70% high end.. this is where it starts to get weird)
> 
> Omega, TAG <--- (5% are high ends)


----------



## Wolfwy

aznseank said:


> History (contributions to watch making)
> Price
> Complication
> Finish
> Design
> Public Awareness


I agree with your categorization of the brands, but I personally place more weight on (1) movement (complications and in-house manufacture); and (2) finish. The other categories all play off of these two. For example, I would consider a $100 watch high-end if it had an in-house movement with tons of complications (however, in reality, these don't exist). Correspondingly, I don't consider a $10,000 watch with an ETA movement high end. Price usually reflects the movement and finishing, but not always. A high-end movement likewise is typically indicative of some history, though in today's world that isn't a given with so many newer boutique brands. Same goes for design, which is more individual preference.


----------



## TK-421

i agree with limiting certain pieces of brands to high-end. i do not consider my portofino high-end. it is a nice watch, but top notch.

for example the revue thommen is in-house at about $2000. i think it doesnt have the complete package of high name recognition and supporting models. this is where marketing would make a difference.












Wolfwy said:


> I agree with your categorization of the brands, but I personally place more weight on (1) movement (complications and in-house manufacture); and (2) finish. The other categories all play off of these two. For example, I would consider a $100 watch high-end if it had an in-house movement with tons of complications (however, in reality, these don't exist). Correspondingly, I don't consider a $10,000 watch with an ETA movement high end. Price usually reflects the movement and finishing, but not always. A high-end movement likewise is typically indicative of some history, though in today's world that isn't a given with so many newer boutique brands. Same goes for design, which is more individual preference.


----------



## Watchbreath

Would you consider Christiaan van der Klaauw high end? He's big on ETA, like the 2824 and some of his babies 
cost well over 10K.


Wolfwy said:


> I agree with your categorization of the brands, but I personally place more weight on (1) movement (complications and in-house manufacture); and (2) finish. The other categories all play off of these two. For example, I would consider a $100 watch high-end if it had an in-house movement with tons of complications (however, in reality, these don't exist). Correspondingly, I don't consider a $10,000 watch with an ETA movement high end. Price usually reflects the movement and finishing, but not always. A high-end movement likewise is typically indicative of some history, though in today's world that isn't a given with so many newer boutique brands. Same goes for design, which is more individual preference.


----------



## Deep Hull

Does ETERNA qualify as a high-end brand? They have quite an impressing history, and they did invent the, ballbearing,automatic windingmechanism, that's in most autos today. They even started making inhouses again...


----------



## Watchbreath

You would think so by their prices.


Deep Hull said:


> Does ETERNA qualify as a high-end brand? They have quite an impressing history, and they did invent the, ballbearing,automatic windingmechanism, that's in most autos today. They even started making inhouses again...


----------



## Deep Hull

Their prices are a bit high yes, but you get a very good watch, compared to other watches in that pricerange. I just bourght a Corum Diver, and that is definetly NOT a high-end watch (modified val 7750)... Nice watch and I like it, but not high-end...


----------



## Toronto Pete

I'm a big fan of Jeannie's (mod) pov on these. Rolex et al are luxury watches, sure, but not high end. That appellation should be reserved for the next level up.


----------



## Spit161

_Luxury Brands?_
Rolex,
Breitling,
Omega,
IWC,
Bulgari,
Panerai,
Hublot,
Tag,
Bremont,
Montblanc,
Bell and Ross.

_
High-end Brands:_
Patek,
JLC,
AP,
Blancpain,
Cartier,
Lange,
Greubel Forsey,
Corum,
Breguet,
Glashutte...

cheers.


----------



## Watchbreath

And the Corum - Golden Bridge?


Deep Hull said:


> Their prices are a bit high yes, but you get a very good watch, compared to other watches in that pricerange. I just bourght a Corum Diver, and that is definetly NOT a high-end watch (modified val 7750)... Nice watch and I like it, but not high-end...


----------



## Deep Hull

Deep Hull 48


----------



## aznseank

lol.. I am assuming you own a cartier and a maurice lacroix... lol



Spit161 said:


> _Luxury Brands?_
> Rolex,
> Breitling,
> Omega,
> IWC,
> Bulgari,
> Panerai,
> Hublot,
> Tag,
> Bremont,
> Montblanc,
> Bell and Ross.
> 
> _High-end Brands:_
> Patek,
> JLC,
> AP,
> Blancpain,
> Cartier,
> Lange,
> Greubel Forsey,
> Maurice Lacroix,
> Breguet,
> Glashutte...
> 
> cheers.


----------



## clarencek

I think high-end means different things to different people. To some it's based on price, to others finish, exclusivity, etc. I've seen this topic bantered around the web and no one can really agree on shared definition. 

My experience has been high-end brands meaning - all/mostly assembled by hand, in low numbers, with exceptional finishing. So while IWC and Rolex may have models priced very high, because most of their watches are made by machines, I don't consider them high-end manufacturer. 

Compared to PP or AP, where they're made in very low quantities (across all their lines), mostly assembled by hand with great finishes. Even the "low-end" PP or AP models are mostly assembled by hand. 
Anyway, just my $0.02.


----------



## iim7v7im7

A brand being "high-end" is a somwhat amorphous concept meaning different things to different people as others have said. To me, low production volumes, high-level of finish, in-house movement manufacture and innovative features are at the heart of "high-end".

Brand pricing among luxury brands is very much driven by the percentage of the watch line made from precious metals vs. steel or titanium etc. To me the brand's were the majority of the watches that they offer are high-end are:

A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
Audemars Piguet
Blancpain (Swatch Group)
Breguet (Swatch Group)
Patek Phillipe
Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
Some brands that make a good portion of their line in the "High-end" are:

Chopard
Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
Glashutte Original (Swatch Group)
IWC (Richemont)
Jaeger-LeCoultre (Richemont)
Ulysse Nardin
These are my "dirty dozen".

The high-end watches from these companies match the first list, it is just that they sell more watches in their lines made from steel or utilizing commodity manufacture movements. Other brands such as Cartier, Montblanc and Hublot are offering more high-end pieces as well.

My $.02,

Bob


----------



## celter

On WUS we have different brand forums. Rolex, IWC, JLC and Omega have their own forums. So I guess "High end" would mean the brands that are above these, as:

PP
VC
AP
ALS
GO
Breguet
Blancpain
and some independent watchmakers


----------



## Firmin

Spit161 said:


> _Luxury Brands?_
> 
> _
> High-end Brands:_
> Patek,
> JLC,
> AP,
> Blancpain,
> Cartier,
> Lange,
> Greubel Forsey,
> Maurice Lacroix,
> Breguet,
> Glashutte...
> 
> cheers.


 Maurice Lacroix ? (Spits out food)


----------



## TK-421

i like some ML, but it is not high-end. if you put this watch in this category, then there should be about 20 others with it. i would put them with TAG, Longines, Ball, Frederique Constant, et cetera, et cetera. i wonder if that was slipped in on purpose. Victorinox would have been funnier.



Firmin said:


> Maurice Lacroix ? (Spits out food)


----------



## Spit161

Firmin said:


> Maurice Lacroix ? (Spits out food)


Your right.. 
Upon reflection, they do not deserve to be there... I will replace them with Corum...

cheers.


----------



## jimmer42

Spit161 said:


> _Luxury Brands?_
> Rolex,
> Breitling,
> Omega,
> IWC,
> Bulgari,
> Panerai,
> Hublot,
> Tag,
> Bremont,
> Montblanc,
> Bell and Ross.
> 
> _
> High-end Brands:_
> Patek,
> JLC,
> AP,
> Blancpain,
> Cartier,
> Lange,
> Greubel Forsey,
> Corum,
> Breguet,
> Glashutte...
> 
> cheers.


Looks about right to me


----------



## pukematrixx

cartier is high end and rolex or zenith are not? hogwash. Cartier watches are NOT high end.


----------



## pukematrixx

pukematrixx said:


> cartier is high end and rolex or zenith are not? hogwash. Cartier watches are NOT high end.


and neither is zenith or rolex btw


----------



## Watchbreath

If not, what is a Cartier - Tortue XL Tourbillon? Chopped liver is not a category here, well maybe, knockoffs qualify.


pukematrixx said:


> cartier is high end and rolex or zenith are not? hogwash. Cartier watches are NOT high end.


----------



## aznseank

Cartier is a retarded version of vacheron. And yes, ML is on par with Tag. Rolex is arguable but I think most IWCs are high ends(evn though it is a less retarded version of a VC).


----------



## On The Run

I agree that questions/pictures/whatever of Omegas, Breitlings, Tags, & company are best served in the other forums. But sometimes one of those borderline watches shows up on this particular forum and usually I'm glad someone shared the pictures, anyway. The worst thing that happens is it gets moved to the public forum - and if that didn't happen Amine would be out of work :-d


----------



## TK-421

zenith has the quality, but their price is lower than some. i would think it as a high end watch.


pukematrixx said:


> and neither is zenith or rolex btw


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: :-x


aznseank said:


> Cartier is a retarded version of vacheron. And yes, ML is on par with Tag. Rolex is arguable but I think most IWCs are high ends(evn though it is a less retarded version of a VC).


----------



## shandy

I love how some think Cartier not high end! They are credited for the first wristwatch. Their designs are regarded as some of the finest and long lasting in the world. Look at some of the movements in them OK there are some ETA but there are also Piaget et all. High end is also about something that the sum of the parts do not make and Cartier is a highly respected Jeweller and watch maker. Of course most members of watch forums are into sports watches and such so the Jewellery side of watchmaking IE the exquisite fit and finish does not matter so much. Also you have to think of the history of the company and what it has achieved and Cartier certainly has an enviable and justified brand recognition. 

Now personally I would never put panerai in the high end. There fit and finish in my personal experience leave a great deal to be desired, more a fashion brand than anything else but that is just me!


----------



## TK-421

i agree that cartier is above panerai. panerai makes nice watches, but not the best. high-end should be for the best. now whether or cartier is high-end is up for debate. but it is definitely above panerai.



shandy said:


> I love how some think Cartier not high end! They are credited for the first wristwatch. Their designs are regarded as some of the finest and long lasting in the world. Look at some of the movements in them OK there are some ETA but there are also Piaget et all. High end is also about something that the sum of the parts do not make and Cartier is a highly respected Jeweller and watch maker. Of course most members of watch forums are into sports watches and such so the Jewellery side of watchmaking IE the exquisite fit and finish does not matter so much. Also you have to think of the history of the company and what it has achieved and Cartier certainly has an enviable and justified brand recognition.
> 
> Now personally I would never put panerai in the high end. There fit and finish in my personal experience leave a great deal to be desired, more a fashion brand than anything else but that is just me!


----------



## PunkJr

AP
JLC
Patek
A. Lange
Vacheron

The rest can fight it out among themselves


----------



## Deep Hull

You might say that All JLC, Ap and PP are limited editions


----------



## Watchbreath

I wouldn't.


Deep Hull said:


> You might say that All JLC, Ap and PP are limited editions


----------



## Tyrtle

Excellent thread. It reveals many of the problems and pitfalls with defining "high end".

I have just two things to add. First, high end should be defined by the watch, not the brand. Otherwise, you end up with absurb situations. For example, some posters have stated that JLC brand watches are high end while Zenith is not.
By going off brand, that means a Quartz JLC Reverso is high end while a Zenith El Primero is not. I think even most people who advocate for JLC recognize that as laughable.

Second, trying to define high-end based on price is also dubious. Most here agree that a $20,000 blinged out quartz is not high end. But some people are willing to still use price to say a watch under $5,000 or $10,000, or $20,000 is not. Others try to use price as a disqualifier when they can find no other reason to claim that their preferred high priced brand is superior.

This opens a can of worms that again leads to absurb conclusions. Based on price, some in this thread claim that Zenith is not high end. This means that Zenith El Primeros, manufacture watches containing what many experts consider as the best mechanical chronograph movement ever made, is not high end- while brands containing inferior chronograph movements are high end. All because Zenith doesn't charge enough for their watches. Another way to state that is, "My watch is high end because I spent more on it"

In short, defining high end based on brand or price is flawed. *Let's stick to appreciating each watch for its own merits, rather than what the watch's hangtag has printed on it.*


----------



## stevie_b

Tyrtle said:


> ...
> 
> In short, defining high end based on brand or price is flawed. *Let's stick to appreciating each watch for its own merits, rather than what the watch's hangtag has printed on it.*


I think the last part there just momentarily exploded the interwebs.


----------



## Toronto Pete

aznseank said:


> Cartier is a retarded version of vacheron.


C'mon, tell us how you really feel.


----------



## pukematrixx

FWIW I own a Zenith and Rolex and don't think either are "high end". For me they aren't in the AP, PP, VC, ALS, type of stratosphere.


----------



## budhudson

What no Harry Winston???


----------



## Firmin

I was wondering , what about Perrelet ?


----------



## shandy

Firmin said:


> I was wondering , what about Perrelet ?


whilst there watches are interesting I think this is another of those brands that have been dug up out of obscurity or bankruptcy and been given some mythical status by a marketing company working for their parent company. For me they rank just below TAG and about the same as Frederic Constant. I would rather have a longines if I were in that market, much more honest watch IMHO.

I think it must also be remembered that companies that get bashed because they are jewellery companies as well is missing the point! 
Once you get above timex they are all jewellery I would say!
A Patek, VC, Cartier, JLC et al all do the same things that you would find in a $100 digital timex. The reason we all go an spend crazy money on them is that they look pretty and we buy into the marketing schtick so why not be honest about it and not make one brand better than the other! Don't get me wrong. I love wearing something that I know has had a certain amount of made by hand in the production. I love wearing the brands I do because of the history of them and I love that they are made of precious metals or have an exquisite fit and finish but my Rolex or Cartiers keep no better time than my Timex easy reader! As for longevity. Well, my much cheaper vintage Bulova Accutron is humming away to perfection 40 years later and cost a fraction of a Patek or other high end brand.
I think really we need to be honest. High end for most of us equals vanity! I know, most will argue, a great many will say " no, I buy for the quality or history and don't care what people think"..Rubbish! If that were the case you would all be wearing lesser brands. I am owning up to the fact that the name on the dial makes me feel good and a little special in my otherwise mundane world!
If it came down to function and reliability then we would all be happy wearing a Timex (which by the way I love as it is what I term an honest watchmaker as it makes what it says and no more!)


----------



## aznseank

shandy, a quality automatic watches cannot be produced by timex. These high ends are intricately crafted and run w/o batteries. I do agree with you to a certain extent that vanity fuels our desire to consume these overpriced goods. And in terms of functionality, I do agree that these are all just novelty items. 

People wear automatic watches not for practical use but because it is a fascinating work of art. In our digital world, where everything is powered by electricity, automatic watches are indeed rare gems. So taking this into account, I don't think people are as vain as you think they are.

This kind of comparison is similar to a painting vs a television. While the tv does provide much more entertainment as opposed to an archaic painting, the history and the craftmanship beyond its creation is what really sets these two object apart. 

I find a rare caravaggio painting much more fascinating as opposed to some LCD televison from china.


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: I wear my automatics cause there watches, I don't see them as works of art and 
I've doin so for 49 years. Manual winds before that. Oh, manual winds are NOT "retarder" versions 
of automatics.


aznseank said:


> shandy, a quality automatic watches cannot be produced by timex. These high ends are intricately crafted and run w/o batteries. I do agree with you to a certain extent that vanity fuels our desire to consume these overpriced goods. And in terms of functionality, I do agree that these are all just novelty items.
> 
> People wear automatic watches not for practical use but because it is a fascinating work of art. In our digital world, where everything is powered by electricity, automatic watches are indeed rare gems. So taking this into account, I don't think people are as vain as you think they are.
> 
> This kind of comparison is similar to a painting vs a television. While the tv does provide much more entertainment as opposed to an archaic painting, the history and the craftmanship beyond its creation is what really sets these two object apart.
> 
> I find a rare caravaggio painting much more fascinating as opposed to some LCD televison from china.


----------



## Techniec

Beyond_Time said:


> Except entry level Pilot and Portifino models. All other IWC watches are considered high-end.
> For Omega, all models with the new Calibre 8XXX are high-end. Tag Heure is not a high-end brand.
> however I think they have one model with Zenith Chronograph movement. That's definitely high-end.
> and many others JLC Rolex Piaget ......


I would like to narrow down the range of IWC models that qualify as "high-end" a little further: imho, it starts at the Portuguese 7 Days / Ingenieur, caliber 80110 upwards, level.....FYI I have both IWC and JLC, and the Portuguese Chronograph is definitely a notch down from the Master Control Chronograph, not just because of the more pedestrian movement used in the IWC, but also due to marginally lower quality fit and finish....

Also disagree with the statement that ALL Omegas featuring calibre 8xxx are high-end...some definitely are, while others fall short in the fit and finish department, when compared to, let's say, GO, JLC, GP, Blancpain etc., but that's just my 2 cents....

Cheers,

Pieter


----------



## Tyrtle

shandy said:


> whilst there watches are interesting I think this is another of those brands that have been dug up out of obscurity or bankruptcy and been given some mythical status by a marketing company working for their parent company.


Actually, that statement sums up this entire industry. Mechanical watches sank into obscurity to the point that even the most revered Swiss mechanical watchmakers (*cough* Patek *cough*) felt they had to sell quartz watches.

If you look closely enough, all brands have sketchy periods in their past- its just comes down to shades of gray. But I think a brand's watches should be judge based on their merits, today. Hence, Breguet, Blancpain, and Zenith make very nice high end watches.

Also, someone complained about Maurice Lacroix earlier. But anyone that takes a look at their manufacture based Masterpieces would be hard pressed to claim they do not qualify as high end without resorting to marketing department justifications:

Maurice Lacroix Masterpiece Le Chronographe 18 kt. Rotgold Lim... for $.18,924 for sale from a Trusted Seller on Chrono24

Or this one:

Maurice Lacroix Memoire 1 Watch | LUXUO Luxury Blog

Which just shows why watches need to be judged on their merits, not their hangtags (although I grant that the hangtags on those MLs make some Breguets look like cheap).


----------



## TK-421

shandy said:


> Once you get above timex they are all jewellery I would say!
> A Patek, VC, Cartier, JLC et al all do the same things that you would find in a $100 digital timex.


+1 i love watches, but ultimately they are jewelry, similar to hand bags. you can get a free handbag at a department store. it carries things just as well as a LV. same with watches. they are all unnecessary above a certain price point. but they truly are treasures.


----------



## TK-421

aznseank said:


> I find a rare caravaggio painting much more fascinating as opposed to some LCD televison from china.


like this one i saw in malta...


----------



## budhudson

Girard Perregaux seems to be conspicuous with its absence?


----------



## Watchbreath

So is F.-P. Journe, Jaquet Droz and a lot of others.


budhudson said:


> Girard Perregaux seems to be conspicuous with its absence?


----------



## Tyrtle

budhudson said:


> Girard Perregaux seems to be conspicuous with its absence?





Watchbreath said:


> So is F.-P. Journe, Jaquet Droz and a lot of others.


This thread has focused as much on berating brands as praising them. So, their absence is probably a complement.

Oh, and their marketing budgets aren't big enough.

Personally, I rate almost all of the watches from those brands as high end.


----------



## Watchbreath

It's more like there production runs are very small and have limited outlets.


Tyrtle said:


> This thread has focused as much on berating brands as praising them. So, their absence is probably a complement.
> 
> Oh, and their marketing budgets aren't big enough.
> 
> Personally, I rate almost all of the watches from those brands as high end.


----------



## dkouzou

These weren't mentioned.
Invicta, Timex, Fossil, Casio, Swatch, Armitron, Pulsar, etc. don't belong here.


----------



## novedl

h. moser & cie


----------



## paulie485

TK-421 said:


> doesn't it seem like there are certain brands that are brought up here, but should not be?
> 
> is TAG Heuer a "high-end" watch? i like omega, but is it "high-end"? i have an IWC, but i don't think i would consider it high-end.
> 
> i wouldn't expect any arguing about Lange or Patek. any others?
> 
> just interested to see what brands people think belong or don't belong here.


I think there should be a simple criterion that is beyond dispute. I propose that if it costs 
more than $5000 then by definition it is "high end". I invite argument about the amount ($10K, $20k??). But really, at the end of the day it is about how much the piece cost. I say this knowing that none of my watches meet my criterion. Maybe we should reduce it to $3000, in which case inam in the game. :-d


----------



## Watchbreath

You can't always use price, about 5 years ago a lady came in and ordered an 18kt Lupah from one of my cronies, it was about $5K. I then stated to call him, Lupah.


paulie485 said:


> I think there should be a simple criterion that is beyond dispute. I propose that if it costs
> more than $5000 then by definition it is "high end". I invite argument about the amount ($10K, $20k??). But really, at the end of the day it is about how much the piece cost. I say this knowing that none of my watches meet my criterion. Maybe we should reduce it to $3000, in which case inam in the game. :-d


----------



## clarencek

Personally, I don't think you can go on price either. Casio has watches in the $3,000 range. Rolex has watches that range from $3,000 to $100,000+... so price is not a good indicator of high-end (manufacturer) - at least my definition of high-end. That said I think we should all just agree that there's no universal definition of high-end... it means different things to different people.


----------



## Stensbjerg

A short high-end list is for me 
JLC
AP
VC
PP
Lange

For me Omega is no way near high-end but IWC make watches in both camps


----------



## Watchbreath

Maybe their Central Flying Tourbillon would change your mind.


Stensbjerg said:


> A short high-end list is for me
> JLC
> AP
> VC
> PP
> Lange
> 
> For me Omega is no way near high-end but IWC make watches in both camps


----------



## Tyrtle

The brands that defy price standards are Zenith and Nomos. It is hard to call some over-priced watches high end while pretending Primeros are not.

If this forum has proven anything since it was founded, it is that there is no easy, objective standard for defining high end watches.

...that and some people define high end based on the most expensive watch they can afford, so they feel superior to as many people as possible =)


----------



## TK-421

if we throw out price, what makes Audemars Piguet and Hublot High End? i like some of their watches, but other than price, i don't know what makes them superior. aren't most of their movements pretty standard?

i think price has to be a factor, but not the only one. i think of high price and true manufacturer.


----------



## paulie485

clarencek said:


> Personally, I don't think you can go on price either. Casio has watches in the $3,000 range. Rolex has watches that range from $3,000 to $100,000+... so price is not a good indicator of high-end (manufacturer) - at least my definition of high-end. That said I think we should all just agree that there's no universal definition of high-end... it means different things to different people.


So if casio made a really good $5000 watch, why wouldn't they qualify? The only reason would be a stereotype based on the name. Here in America we call that "prejudice".

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## aznseank

thats why it is an "if." If casio was able to pull off some bs marketing and make their own in house movement, then yeah...the 5k casio would be consider a high end. Beyond price, it is also about market segment as well. The brand must be targeted towards the upper class. But I can't really visualize a brand that covers from $20-$100,000. I highly doubt that anyone would be interested in such a brand. 

On a same note, seiko is trying to tap into the luxury market with their grand seikos. It seems that while some people take their japanese movement seriously, most watch lovers just laugh at their futile attempt. Despite their superior movement and "real" history(yes, real history..not some fabricated fairy tales like jacquet droz), no one really seems to consider them highend. Just on movement alone, they are far superior to a Rolex or an IWC(ETA ones). Heck, I would place them on the same level with JLC. But no one considers them highend. 

As aforementioned, marketing does matter. Price matters. It is mostly about image marketing. And most people are suckers for this kinda stuff. I know I am.


----------



## Watchbreath

:-( Groooan


aznseank said:


> thats why it is an "if." If casio was able to pull off some bs marketing and make their own in house movement, then yeah...the 5k casio would be consider a high end. Beyond price, it is also about market segment as well. The brand must be targeted towards the upper class. But I can't really visualize a brand that covers from $20-$100,000. I highly doubt that anyone would be interested in such a brand.
> 
> On a same note, seiko is trying to tap into the luxury market with their grand seikos. It seems that while some people take their japanese movement seriously, most watch lovers just laugh at their futile attempt. Despite their superior movement and "real" history(yes, real history..not some fabricated fairy tales like jacquet droz), no one really seems to consider them highend. Just on movement alone, they are far superior to a Rolex or an IWC(ETA ones). Heck, I would place them on the same level with JLC. But no one considers them highend.
> 
> As aforementioned, marketing does matter. Price matters. It is mostly about image marketing. And most people are suckers for this kinda stuff. I know I am.


----------



## budhudson

How about a score range system based on a simple formula to determine high End? -

Example system could be positive points for yes and minus points for no with categories such as -

In house movement 
Case manufacture
Number of complications with a grading system for the degree of complication (hours minutes and seconds are a given requirement for base scoring - the rest are complication additions)
Size of watch (maybe obvious but to get 10 complications in a 30mm case is harder than 5 complications in a 50mm case?)
Fit and finish etc

Things not to be included -

Material of case
Strap material
Clasp type etc

Just some ideas and over to the more technically minded to suggest the categories and scoring system

This negates the 'history' arguments and also marketing hype/budgets. Let the watch be judged on its own merits and see what everyone feels

Can of worms suitably opened

Mark


----------



## Watchbreath

Always with the in-house movement, like it's a big deal. It becomes a big deal with the cost of repair, time and 
service. Then the whining starts and sounds like an air-raid siren.


budhudson said:


> How about a score range system based on a simple formula to determine high End? -
> 
> Example system could be positive points for yes and minus points for no with categories such as -
> 
> In house movement
> Case manufacture
> Number of complications with a grading system for the degree of complication (hours minutes and seconds are a given requirement for base scoring - the rest are complication additions)
> Size of watch (maybe obvious but to get 10 complications in a 30mm case is harder than 5 complications in a 50mm case?)
> Fit and finish etc
> 
> Things not to be included -
> 
> Material of case
> Strap material
> Clasp type etc
> 
> Just some ideas and over to the more technically minded to suggest the categories and scoring system
> 
> This negates the 'history' arguments and also marketing hype/budgets. Let the watch be judged on its own merits and see what everyone feels
> 
> Can of worms suitably opened
> 
> Mark


----------



## clarencek

paulie485 said:


> So if casio made a really good $5000 watch, why wouldn't they qualify? The only reason would be a stereotype based on the name. Here in America we call that "prejudice".


It's not prejudice, it's differing definitions of high-end. For those who think price is the criteria for high-end... that's fine. Anyone who makes a watch over $5,000 is high-end... OK. Then basically almost every Swiss brand is high-end, not to mention a number of Asian brands.

My definition is different and includes exclusivity and a commitment to the art and history. Sure a lot of that is marketing, but that's just my definition. And admit, even my own criteria doesn't stand up everywhere... as I don't consider Panerai high-end - yes, they do only manufacture low-numbers, and have a long, interesting history in the industry.


----------



## TK-421

in-house is a big deal. if you go to a restaurant you want to eat food made by the restaurant, not premade and heated up.



Watchbreath said:


> Always with the in-house movement, like it's a big deal. It becomes a big deal with the cost of repair, time and
> service. Then the whining starts and sounds like an air-raid siren.


----------



## Watchbreath

At some restaurants the food would be better prepared elsewhere and many they are premade and heated up and 
cold in the middle.


TK-421 said:


> in-house is a big deal. if you go to a restaurant you want to eat food made by the restaurant, not premade and heated up.


----------



## budhudson

Another few categories to my previous list could be -

Technological advances (materials used etc - perhaps UN take this category?)
Awards won
Patents registered etc

I understand its not easy but to set a standard there has to be benchmarks

On that note - in house movement is a big deal and worth noting (IMO). Otherwise you are merely a case maker and/or watch assembler and NOT A WATCH MAKER per se


----------



## TK-421

those restaurants should not be in business. i want fresh and real.



Watchbreath said:


> At some restaurants the food would be better prepared elsewhere and many they are premade and heated up and
> cold in the middle.


----------



## cholack

budhudson said:


> Another few categories to my previous list could be -
> 
> Technological advances (materials used etc - perhaps UN take this category?)
> Awards won
> Patents registered etc
> 
> I understand its not easy but to set a standard there has to be benchmarks
> 
> On that note - in house movement is a big deal and worth noting (IMO). Otherwise you are merely a case maker and/or watch assembler and NOT A WATCH MAKER per se


+1 on the in-house movement. A Ferrari, for example, would not be held in high regard if say their engines were outsourced from another company. Remember, this is in the context of differentiating between "high-end" vs. "Luxury" and "fashion" watches.


----------



## TK-421

:-!i think that is a very excellent point. in-house=high end. outsourced=luxury/fashion. i like that.:-!



cholack said:


> +1 on the in-house movement. A Ferrari, for example, would not be held in high regard if say their engines were outsourced from another company. Remember, this is in the context of differentiating between "high-end" vs. "Luxury" and "fashion" watches.


----------



## Watchbreath

Then how would you classify 'Thomas Prescher', who main caliber is an ETA 2824?


cholack said:


> +1 on the in-house movement. A Ferrari, for example, would not be held in high regard if say their engines were outsourced from another company. Remember, this is in the context of differentiating between "high-end" vs. "Luxury" and "fashion" watches.


----------



## Janne

What if Ferrari realised its technological limitation, and started fitting AMG V8 MB engine with or without superchargers and in different levels of tuning?? 
Inhouse is not such a definite thing. I think some manufacturers use movements made by other High End Manufactures?
In the past, PP and JLC supplied moements to others.

Does that make them NOT High End?


----------



## budhudson

Luxury specialist?


----------



## cholack

Janne said:


> What if Ferrari realised its technological limitation, and started fitting AMG V8 MB engine with or without superchargers and in different levels of tuning??
> Inhouse is not such a definite thing. I think some manufacturers use movements made by other High End Manufactures?
> In the past, PP and JLC supplied moements to others.
> 
> Does that make them NOT High End?


I haven't expressed my full opinion, which is apparently dangerous in such a volatile climate. I had planned on writing much more in depth at a later date and will do so next week. For the time being, however, I will say that being a manufacture is not the be-all-end-all, as, yes, there are notable exceptions such as Thomas Prescher & Peter Speake Marin. However, having the capability to make your own in-house movement or the ability to heavily modify a base ebauche really differentiates yourself from the ordinary.

What is really needed is a hierarchical approach to classification with both inclusion and exclusion features. I'll discuss this at a later date, as it relates to my work as a Psychiatrist and making diagnoses based on pattern of symptoms. If readers are familiar with the DSM then you are already familiar with that I will discuss.

One last thing, Janne, about Ferrari switching to AMG-based engines due to technological limitations...then my friend, I would then suppose that we would have a new big kid on the block to deal with, with Ferrari abdicating its status as the top dog.


----------



## TK-421

in the first sentence, "ferrari realised its technological limitation" see that means they fell from high-end if they could no longer make their own engines.



Janne said:


> What if Ferrari realised its technological limitation, and started fitting AMG V8 MB engine with or without superchargers and in different levels of tuning??
> Inhouse is not such a definite thing. I think some manufacturers use movements made by other High End Manufactures?
> In the past, PP and JLC supplied moements to others.
> 
> Does that make them NOT High End?


----------



## RichieP

I'll second (or third? or fourth? or four thousandth?) the motion that there should be no need to label an entire brand as high-end or not. Let each watch qualify independently.

I also agree that price is irrelevant to the determination. If the watch is high-end, it will _usually_ command a high price, but it does not have to. Similarly, having a high price does not automatically make the watch high end.

Furthermore, a movement does not have to be "in-house" _per se_, in order to be high-end, nor does being in-house (like a Seiko 7S26) automatically make a movement high-end. A hand assembled movement, of the highest quality, complication, and decoration will naturally be limited in production due to the limited number of watchmakers skilled enough to make them. If it is a different company that contributes the case and dial, that does not change the quality of the movement (but that case and dial better be of the highest quality too). If I were judging, I would award bonus points for having the highest percentage of parts designed, fabricated, and assembled in-house, but that is not 100% necessary.


----------



## budhudson

Was only offering suggestions for categories thats all

I was not stating that they were fixed and final

Had to give a starting point so mentioned in house as a good base (no pun intended)

In the absence of any further positive suggestions its difficult to define criteria

Its the easiest thing in the world to pick points against something suggested. Takes more to come back with positive suggestive response rather than petty nit picking?


----------



## TK-421

in-house does not make a watch high-end, but outsourced does make it more of a fashion/luxury watch than high-end.



budhudson said:


> Was only offering suggestions for categories thats all
> 
> I was not stating that they were fixed and final
> 
> Had to give a starting point so mentioned in house as a good base (no pun intended)
> 
> In the absence of any further positive suggestions its difficult to define criteria
> 
> Its the easiest thing in the world to pick points against something suggested. Takes more to come back with positive suggestive response rather than petty nit picking?


----------



## paulie485

Little did I imagine that this would get so over-heated. Lighten up, guys!


----------



## budhudson

No problem for me

Only adding to my original observations and comments

Will hold back if i am offending anyone?

For all the sit on the have a go at my comment gang - what does constitute a high end element then?

Answers on a forum please to ..................................


----------



## TK-421




----------



## budhudson

Haha point taken

Must be my Englishness coming through?

I am open to any and all answers and dont mean any offence to anyone at all

Just misunderstood i guess?

Must get into the 'forum spirit and way of thinking'?


----------



## TK-421

no no. i think everything is fine. people do tend to get too sensitive. i think that since there is no true definition of a high end watch it is nice to read all of the different views.

JLC is high-end, Blancpain is luxury, Hublot is fashion.



budhudson said:


> Haha point taken
> 
> Must be my Englishness coming through?
> 
> I am open to any and all answers and dont mean any offence to anyone at all
> 
> Just misunderstood i guess?
> 
> Must get into the 'forum spirit and way of thinking'?


----------



## budhudson

Ok then

In the absence of a true agenda and system how about a simple poll?

Person offers name of brand and receives positive and negative points according to members assumptions of the brand

The results are taken over a given time scale (to allow fair representation) and collated to give either a yes or no verdict. This is the same for ALL brands nominated

The winners stay in the 'high end' bracket and the losers are never mentioned again with the brand proposer banished forever (maybe a little harsh the last bit so can be modified to suit)

Any better than my original attempt? Or has this been done previously and i am raking over old ground?

Mark


----------



## aznseank

@budhudson... As much as your proposal sounds great, there seems to be a slight problem. The problem is that not all watch brands have the same number of followers. My prediction is that brands like OMega and Rolex will be voted as high ends while brands like JLC will have few votes. Afterall, you cant really say that people arent biased. So I am afraid the poll wont be fair. A better idea would be to take poll on what is the most valued aspect of a watch. Then using that criteria, we can assign points to all models from a brand. After gathering all the points of models, then we can average it out.(excluding anomalies ofcourse) Then perhaps that score might be somewhat of an accurate representation of the brand.


----------



## budhudson

That seems like a fair suggestion and i second the motion to action this

Like i said before, my ideas were based on thought at the time and in retrospect were good in principal but probably not in practice

Let the polling/voting begin


----------



## clarencek

This has been an interesting thread, but I don't really see the point of trying to define "high-end"... it's like asking which cheese is the cheesiest... it's completely subjective. But if you create a poll, I'll certainly weigh in.


----------



## TK-421

kraft power cheese is the cheesiest.



clarencek said:


> This has been an interesting thread, but I don't really see the point of trying to define "high-end"... it's like asking which cheese is the cheesiest... it's completely subjective. But if you create a poll, I'll certainly weigh in.


----------



## Tyrtle

TK-421 said:


> :-!i think that is a very excellent point. in-house=high end. outsourced=luxury/fashion. i like that.:-!


So Nomos and Zenith are high end again. But where does that leave IWC?


----------



## cholack

If you have the determination to read this long post and follow ups, I think you will gain another perspective on how to tackle this categorization problem. I will post in 3 parts due to time considerations: an introduction to concepts, a proposed criteria, and case-based discussion. 
*
Part I. Introduction to concepts*

While there have been many suggestions of individual criteria and many attempts to sort brands into categories, it is obviously apparent that there is no consensus thus far. However, as a psychiatrist by trade, I can see a very nice solution that follows our Diagnostic of Statistic Manual (DSM). Briefly, the way we use the DSM to make psychiatric diagnoses is based on a hierarchy of criteria that includes both including and excluding features. 
For example to define a Major Depressive Episode (MDE):


Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.

depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). *Note:* In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.
markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others).
significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. *Note:* In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains.
(4) insomnia or hypersomia nearly every day.
psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down).
fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day.
feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick).
diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).
recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide.

The symptoms do not meet criteria for a Mixed Episode.
The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse) or a general medical condition (e.g., hypothyroidism).
The symptoms are not better accounted for by Bereavement, i.e., after the loss of a loved one, the symptoms persist for longer than 2 months or are characterized by marked functional impairment, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation.

In this real example, you can see that there are Criteria A to F (EDIT: A-F does not display correctly. Please refer to the left-most numbers as Criteria A-F). These criteria are *hierarchical* in that you must satisfy preceding criteria. For example while many may experience several symptoms from Criterion B, in order to meet the definition of MDE you must have Criterion A symptoms (which makes sense as how can one diagnose a DME without depressed mood?). In Criteron B, there are SEVERAL inclusive symptoms which must be met concurrently; in this case, 5 criteria are necessary for a diagnosis. This is done so that we can *increase the specificity* or our diagnosis. In Criteria C-F, there are exclusionary symptoms which helps to ensure that we are indeed looking at a psychiatric unipolar depression and not a depression due to other etiologies.

But before I begin I want to make certain that there is indeed a difference between what we are calling "high-end" from "luxury" *BRANDS*, *and it is this distinction that we are trying to define*. Perhaps the best way to view this is via a car analogy, whereby we will divide some brands into "luxury" and "exotics". I think that without much argument, we can place such brands like BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi within the luxury segment, and place brands such as Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Bugatti in the exotic category. While there are two obviously distinct groups, the question now remains as to why do we perceive these brands as they are? More specifically, what are the qualities that we value and hence make our judgments from?

You should notice that I have specifically emphasized "brands" as the topic of debate and have not adopted the sorting timepieces by an individual basis. My rationale is derived from the concept of brand dilution. Take for example, Toyota and Lexus. Now in this case, the parent company Toyota had realized that the brand name "Toyota" is associated with several characteristics such as economy, value-for-dollar, reliability and ubiquity. Thus, from a marketing standpoint, if Toyota were to create a pure luxury vehicle they would have a hard time convincing the market audience that it was one given Toyota's reputation as an economy vehicle. As a result, to facilitate the public's acceptance, Lexus was created. The point is, even if Toyota created the most powerful, fastest and quickest car in the world, it would still be a Toyota with associated connotations. This is true for other cars, such as the Nissan GT-R; no doubt that there is phenomenal performance that meets or exceeds the capability of a Porsche 911 but again, at the end of the day, it is still a Nissan.

Moving on, this thread has served a good purpose in flushing out those qualities that we value/devalue. A quick list I tabulated from the many posts include history, cost, degree of mechanical innovation or complication, design, public awareness, limited production, machine vs. hand finishing and quality of, targeted market and in-house vs. outsourced movements.

Alone these criteria are over-inclusive, which means that they need to be combined in some form to be specific. Again, back to my Depression example, many of us have felt depressed but not to the point of true clinical depression where it is a mental health disorder requiring intervention.

I will post Part 2 sometime next week.


----------



## Nai no Kami

I couldn't be able to express my feelings in a clearer way. We should be friends.


----------



## Nai no Kami

Tyrtle said:


> Excellent thread. It reveals many of the problems and pitfalls with defining "high end".
> 
> I have just two things to add. First, high end should be defined by the watch, not the brand. Otherwise, you end up with absurb situations. For example, some posters have stated that JLC brand watches are high end while Zenith is not.
> By going off brand, that means a Quartz JLC Reverso is high end while a Zenith El Primero is not. I think even most people who advocate for JLC recognize that as laughable.
> 
> Second, trying to define high-end based on price is also dubious. Most here agree that a $20,000 blinged out quartz is not high end. But some people are willing to still use price to say a watch under $5,000 or $10,000, or $20,000 is not. Others try to use price as a disqualifier when they can find no other reason to claim that their preferred high priced brand is superior.
> 
> This opens a can of worms that again leads to absurb conclusions. Based on price, some in this thread claim that Zenith is not high end. This means that Zenith El Primeros, manufacture watches containing what many experts consider as the best mechanical chronograph movement ever made, is not high end- while brands containing inferior chronograph movements are high end. All because Zenith doesn't charge enough for their watches. Another way to state that is, "My watch is high end because I spent more on it"
> 
> In short, defining high end based on brand or price is flawed. *Let's stick to appreciating each watch for its own merits, rather than what the watch's hangtag has printed on it.*


I couldn't have expressed my feelings more clearly. We should be friends.


----------



## Tyrtle

Just to make this discussion even more fun...

What about vintage watches? Obviously, using price as a criterion means none of them are high end. I guess we could inflation adjust them. But many were sold in different currencies, some of which don't exist now. 
If we are going to use price as part of the definition of high end, someone is going to need to write a dissertation on valuing defunct currencies =)

Vintage watches also show the perils of judging a watch by brand. For example, consider a 1960s Longines. Today, few of the watches made under the Longines brand come close to qualifying as high end by any of the standards discussed.
But those of us familiar with their history recognize that many of the vintage ones do. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see people argue that watches from current high end "brands" were NOT high end 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

Or we could just drop price and brand, and judge each watch on its own merits and workmanship...


----------



## Watchbreath

In 1961, Patek Philippe started at 550 USD and that was very high end when you consider that the average 
fine watch was about 110 USD. But then again, we were on the Silver Standard then, so that throws everything 
off.


Tyrtle said:


> Just to make this discussion even more fun...
> 
> What about vintage watches? Obviously, using price as a criterion means none of them are high end. I guess we could inflation adjust them. But many were sold in different currencies, some of which don't exist now.
> If we are going to use price as part of the definition of high end, someone is going to need to write a dissertation on valuing defunct currencies =)
> 
> Vintage watches also show the perils of judging a watch by brand. For example, consider a 1960s Longines. Today, few of the watches made under the Longines brand come close to qualifying as high end by any of the standards discussed.
> But those of us familiar with their history recognize that many of the vintage ones do. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see people argue that watches from current high end "brands" were NOT high end 20, 40, or 60 years ago.
> 
> Or we could just drop price and brand, and judge each watch on its own merits and workmanship...


----------



## TK-421

they have in-house, you make the call.



Tyrtle said:


> So Nomos and Zenith are high end again. But where does that leave IWC?


----------



## Ckitcummings

Hi Guys,

I certainly wouldn't classify the Seiko brand as high end but interested to hear people's views on the new Grand Seiko spring drive watches. From what i have read they are supposed to be the most accurate, well built watch movements in the world. Asking circa £5000 for a Grand Seiko is a pretty bold move but i would hate to think what price they would be if you stuck an AP or Patek badge on the watches!!

Would anyone classify the Spring Drive movements in a Grand Seiko as "high end"?

Interested to hear people's thoughts. Remember....i'm not making the claim that Seiko is a high end brand...just the movement


----------



## TK-421

the brand no, but the movement yes. it is like hyundai. you would not say the brand is high-end, but their top luxury car is great.

i agree about the spring-drive being in another case. that type of movement in an AP would be over $30,000.00

i don't understand why AP and Hublot have such high prices for watches with ETA movements.

i still believe that their can be high-end watches and high-end brands. the OP was about brands. imo seiko is not high-end. it is like toyota or hyundai.

i have looked at a lot of the spring drives, maybe one day.



Ckitcummings said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I certainly wouldn't classify the Seiko brand as high end but interested to hear people's views on the new Grand Seiko spring drive watches. From what i have read they are supposed to be the most accurate, well built watch movements in the world. Asking circa £5000 for a Grand Seiko is a pretty bold move but i would hate to think what price they would be if you stuck an AP or Patek badge on the watches!!
> 
> Would anyone classify the Spring Drive movements in a Grand Seiko as "high end"?
> 
> Interested to hear people's thoughts. Remember....i'm not making the claim that Seiko is a high end brand...just the movement


----------



## Stensbjerg

clarencek said:


> This has been an interesting thread, but I don't really see the point of trying to define "high-end"... it's like asking which cheese is the cheesiest... it's completely subjective. But if you create a poll, I'll certainly weigh in. [/QUOTE
> 
> Cheese is cheese
> but some brands just ain't and never will be high-end and some will say look 100% our own movement we are now a high-end brand
> and they haven't build any thing them self


----------



## clarencek

Stensbjerg said:


> Cheese is cheese


Well, then you don't know cheeses - as they're definitely not all created equal. Do you think wine is wine or beer is beer?


----------



## aznseank

while there may be some cheese that are cleary better than others, it isnt possible to say that a specific kind is the best. People are attracted to different qualities, textures and tastes. As such, there are best "cheeses." Same with watches, people look for different attributes in watch. Unless a Hological timepiece God descends from the sky and throws a rotor which engraves the 10 qualifications of a high-end, defining a highend is almost impossible.


----------



## Stensbjerg

clarencek said:


> Well, then you don't know cheeses - as they're definitely not all created equal. Do you think wine is wine or beer is beer?


Off course can they all have there own flavour taste and price but in the end cheese is cheese,beer is beer and wine is wine 
to put in on another level is just ********.

As I always say watches is about telling a good story and make us belive it
they same goes when more and more brands today proud say they have inhouse movement.

I don't think it is that hard to me inhouse is when the brand have come up with,and made the movement them self 
anything else is just some brands attempt to go some places they don't belong.


----------



## craniotes

TK-421 said:


> i don't understand why AP ... have such high prices for watches with ETA movements.


Yeah, me neither. So, which AP models are using ETA movements?

Regards,
Adam


----------



## clarencek

Stensbjerg said:


> Off course can they all have there own flavour taste and price but in the end cheese is cheese,beer is beer and wine is wine
> to put in on another level is just ********.
> 
> As I always say watches is about telling a good story and make us belive it
> they same goes when more and more brands today proud say they have inhouse movement.
> 
> I don't think it is that hard to me inhouse is when the brand have come up with,and made the movement them self
> anything else is just some brands attempt to go some places they don't belong.


So are you saying a watch is just a watch and everything else is marketing?

If so, then we have different views of the craft that goes into making a product - any product. 
If you think a $5 bottle of wine made with grape juice, alcohol and artificial flavoring is the same as something aged off a vineyard... then so be it.

Is a computer just a computer? Are Macs the same as PC's? Are cars just cars - is BMW the same as Kia?

Personally, I can tell the difference. Just as I can tell the difference between a hand assembled and finished watch vs a completely machine made and finished watch. 
You may think it's marketing, but it's not.


----------



## TK-421

royal oak offshore use modified Valjoux 7750s. i know they make them real nice and all, but i still look at those as casemaker watches. like my anonimo.



craniotes said:


> Yeah, me neither. So, which AP models are using ETA movements?
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


----------



## Stensbjerg

You don't get what I mean I haven't said that there isen't a different,all I say is things don't have to be so hard to understand inhouse is used in such a wrong way today that it have lost what it was years back,because the brands understand what it mean to many watchpeople so they marketing people have gone crazy with the word. 

You will find some of the best wines today at winemakers that don't put winemaking to a level where it don't belong,I don't say that there isen't a different just keep that the winepeople should keep there feet on the ground,the same with cars basic they all do the same take you from A to B but then you offcouse also have prestige comfort and many other things in the picture. 

Like it or not a Timex and Lange can basic do the same show you the time,there are even called the same they are just not the same kind of watch,
I just keep drive my BMW and work with cars in our Kia shop as I have done for the last 20 year or so and we can agree on that we disagree.


----------



## budhudson

TK-421 said:


> royal oak offshore use modified Valjoux 7750s. i know they make them real nice and all, but i still look at those as casemaker watches. like my anonimo.


Couldnt agree more (same Valjoux in my Anonimo Cronoscopio) - watch assemblers not makers?


----------



## mleok

Ckitcummings said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I certainly wouldn't classify the Seiko brand as high end but interested to hear people's views on the new Grand Seiko spring drive watches. From what i have read they are supposed to be the most accurate, well built watch movements in the world. Asking circa £5000 for a Grand Seiko is a pretty bold move but i would hate to think what price they would be if you stuck an AP or Patek badge on the watches!!
> 
> Would anyone classify the Spring Drive movements in a Grand Seiko as "high end"?
> 
> Interested to hear people's thoughts. Remember....i'm not making the claim that Seiko is a high end brand...just the movement


I think there is a fundamental difference between Seiko and Grand Seiko. The quality of craftsmanship and finish on a Grand Seiko is truly extraordinary, and I can't think of any reason not to consider a Grand Seiko high-end by any reasonable definition.


----------



## TK-421

watch assemblers, i agree. i love my anonimo. i appreciate it for the case. the price is high, but doable. i just dont get how a HUBLOT or AP is with an ETA movement is worth 3 to 5 times the price of an anonimo. this is what makes AP and Hublot luxury brands. i like their watches, but understand they are not Patek, JLC, Zenith, or ALS. i think their is something to be said for a company that makes a watch from start to finish.



budhudson said:


> Couldnt agree more (same Valjoux in my Anonimo Cronoscopio) - watch assemblers not makers?


----------



## wwiibuff

TK-421 said:


> royal oak offshore use modified Valjoux 7750s. i know they make them real nice and all, but i still look at those as casemaker watches. like my anonimo.


are you sure about AP using 7750's......I doubt that


----------



## mleok

wwiibuff said:


> are you sure about AP using 7750's......I doubt that


I believe it is a modified JLC 889. AP owned a significant share of JLC, until Richemont acquired JLC about 10 years ago. Vacheron Constantin uses a number of JLC ebauches as well.


----------



## craniotes

TK-421 said:


> royal oak offshore use modified Valjoux 7750s. i know they make them real nice and all, but i still look at those as casemaker watches. like my anonimo.


Actually, I was just messin' with you there, trooper; AP has never used ETA movements and never will. They are one of the three so-called great houses of watchmaking (along with Patek and Vacheron), and their reputation is richly deserved.

As has been pointed out already, AP has used JLC movements in the past, and indeed some of their movements today are based on JLC designs, but then Vacheron and Patek are also guilty of using JLC as well. No shame in that game, IMO.

"Casemaker watches"? Like your Anonimo?

Hardly.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## clarencek

craniotes said:


> Actually, I was just messin' with you there, trooper; AP has never used ETA movements and never will. They are one of the three so-called great houses of watchmaking (along with Patek and Vacheron), and their reputation is richly deserved.


Geez I thought you lost it there for a while.


----------



## craniotes

clarencek said:


> Geez I thought you lost it there for a while.


Ha! No, I'm still in possession of my WIS faculties, Clarence. This thread has been amusing for a number of reasons, but I felt it was time to interject lest a newbie wandered in and started taking certain folks' words as gospel truth and not the ill-informed pap that it actually is.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## budhudson

craniotes said:


> Ha! No, I'm still in possession of my WIS faculties, Clarence. This thread has been amusing for a number of reasons, but I felt it was time to interject lest a newbie wandered in and started taking certain folks' words as gospel truth and not the ill-informed pap that it actually is.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


This isnt directed at me i trust?


----------



## TK-421

i was told this, but the sales person may not have known what he was talking about.



wwiibuff said:


> are you sure about AP using 7750's......I doubt that


----------



## Janne

As far as I know (source our local Master watchmaker, PP, Rolex, JLC, ettc etc qualified) IWC and a host of other well known watchmanufactures are using more or less modified ETA's, in IWC's case assemblked in the ETA factory, in an IWC Studio. 

One side of me dislkes this, as I do not like to pay Top $$$ for a modified product based on a product made in the millions, but on the other hand, the base product (top or COSC grade ETA) are so friggin' good!

A totally inhouse movement does not have to cot a fortune, not even if the production numbers are low. Look on the basic JLC models.
Small numbers, inhouse, etc.
(Rolex is similar, but they produce lots of them.)


----------



## craniotes

budhudson said:


> This isnt directed at me i trust?


Well, that depends, Bud; do you still agree with our favorite Stormtrooper that AP doesnt represent a good value because they're using ETA movements in their $20k+ chronographs?

Regards,
Adam


----------



## budhudson

Adam,

Point taken. I didnt realise that i had sided with someone on this. I was genuinely trying to get in on the assumed joke of it all (hence even referencing one of my own watches). I guess this has now backfired and i will step away from the frey.

Also after re-reading the original comment by you, this refers to a newbie coming in and seeing etc. I was already part of the thread so my mistake

Must take more notice when reading etc

No harm and/or hard feelings i trust

Mark


----------



## budhudson

Favourite Stormtrooper? hahaha - i need to get into the spirit of all this forum thing

Sorry for my misunderstanding and ignorance to certain things

Realisation will come with time


----------



## craniotes

Hard feelings? Puh-leeze. We're all WIS here, and judging from the quality of your collection, you rank up there with the best of them. At times I do take umbrage at folks presenting opinions as fact, particularly when we've got other folks who are coming here to learn, but otherwise, we're all on the same team. Even TK-421, who as a watch fan and Star Wars fan is probably someone that I would really get along with (now get back to your post, trooper, there's rebel scum about...).

Regards,
Adam


----------



## usc1

From reading all the posts, I think it time we put it to a vote. The problem I foresee is agreeing which brands to place on the ballot.


----------



## budhudson

Adam - thanks and points duly noted

USC1 - may i propose JLC as the first brand for consideration please (obvious i know but lets get this show on the road)?


----------



## Stensbjerg

No one with just a minimum watch knowledge can say that JLC isen't a high end brand
no matter what you look at they have what it takes.


----------



## wwiibuff

I will say, as I read the AP / ETA part of the thread I though I had missed something. I knew they used JLC but had never heard anything about ETA, I thought I missed something somewhere. I was about to sell my AP Annual Calander, I had lost all respect for them if it was true.


----------



## TK-421

i was told that AP uses ETA movements by a salesperson. i just asked a 2nd person and they told me the same. so i would be interested if someone who knows for sure would chime in on this. if this is true, then i consider AP a luxury brand, if this is not true, then i would put them as high-end.


----------



## Janne

Me too have heard that AP uses sometimes ETA.
Of course, I might be misled. Has happened before.


----------



## wwiibuff

Fake AP's use 7750's, per the AP service center in clearwater Fl real AP's do not.


----------



## Janne

If not ETA, then maybe Ronda?

What I did not mention before, is that I am not sure who makes the QUARTZ movements. I doubt AP or PP manufacture them 100% from scratch. 
Certain parts - yes, but not all parts.

We tend to forget that some of these High End Manufacturers also make Quartz watches!!!


----------



## craniotes

Let me put this to rest for you guys:

AP does not use ETA movements (nor do they use Ronda). They have collaborated with JLC in the past, but then so have pretty much all the major brands.

Case closed.

Regards,
Adam

PS - AP's quartz models are made by, you guessed it, AP, most likely with an assist from JLC or F.Piguet. It might surprise some of you to learn that marques like Rolex, Patek, IWC and JLC have all collaborated in the past to develop quartz calibers. Look up the Beta 21...


----------



## Janne

I would think that all the major components in the Quartz movements used by these low production companies are outsourced. Bridges and plates - can be made inhouse, together with the assembly?

I do not think AP, PP or JLC have the machinery to manufacture the crystals, coil, boards etc.


----------



## craniotes

Janne said:


> I would think that all the major components in the Quartz movements used by these low production companies are outsourced. Bridges and plates - can be made inhouse, together with the assembly?
> 
> I do not think AP, PP or JLC have the machinery to manufacture the crystals, coil, boards etc.


Now you're splitting hairs. With the exception of Seiko, which has raised vertical integration to an art form -- and to a slightly lesser degree, Rolex -- no manufacture can create EVERY component in-house. Where you choose to draw the line is up to you, of course, but for the purposes of the discussion here, AP qualifies as a high-end, in-house manufacture by every reasonable criteria.

For further discussion of AP's quartz calibres, the High-end Quartz forum is probably the best place to hang out. Those guys know _everything_ about quartz watches, top to bottom.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## Janne

AP is definitely high end, no doubt!

Splitting hairs? If it is as I assume, that the major parts in the Quartz movements are not made by AP, PP, JLC, Rolex, but just the plates, bridges and assembly, then it can certainly be discussed if the movement is inhouse.

I will post in the Forum you recommend.


----------



## TK-421

i just spoke with 2 different ADs. they both said that AP makes their non-chrono movements, and that their chrono movements are modified movements of other manufacturers.



Janne said:


> AP is definitely high end, no doubt!
> 
> Splitting hairs? If it is as I assume, that the major parts in the Quartz movements are not made by AP, PP, JLC, Rolex, but just the plates, bridges and assembly, then it can certainly be discussed if the movement is inhouse.
> 
> I will post in the Forum you recommend.


----------



## ajack

I really wonder why Blancpain is not high-end, but just luxury. Ok, I know that's different between high-end and luxury, but, can anyone tell me more specific?

Each Blancpain watch is made by single watchmaker, they have in-house movements, they got the most complicated watch in the world (Blancpain 1735). And Blancpain is not high-end watch?


----------



## Andrés

TK-421 said:


> i was told this, but the sales person may not have known what he was talking about.


 I would double check the info before posting, specially if you´re getting you facts from sales people. ;-)

BTW-The sales person had no clue about what he was talking.


----------



## Andrés

TK-421 said:


> i just spoke with 2 different ADs. they both said that AP makes their non-chrono movements, and that their chrono movements are modified movements of other manufacturers.


 Close but no cigar. First of all, AP makes a lot of different watches and you can´t exclusively split their movements into chronos and non-chronos. To complicate things even more, for example, they use in-house non chrono movements (like the cal.3120), non in-house non-chrono movemets like the cal.2121 (JLC 920 base movement) used on the iconic Royal Oak Jumbo. They also have in-house chrono movements, like the AP caliber 2897 used in ROO Tourbillon Chrono, Chronos with in-house base movents (Cal.3120) and Dubois Depraz chronograph modules, like the new ROO´s...I can go on and on...

Like it was already said by Adam: "AP qualifies as a high-end, in-house manufacture by every reasonable criteria"


----------



## Stensbjerg

I think some brands make something in both camps (luxury and highend)
for example IWC and Chopard I thinke it is the same case with Blancpain because as you say the do make pure highend.

It is the same with a brand like Glashutte Orginal they are often "forgotten" when we talk highend.
I think many just tend to say then first four that comes to mind when they talk about highend brands.


----------



## TK-421

very good points. i agree that some brands have both luxury and high-end. just like my IWC portofino would not be considered high-end.



Stensbjerg said:


> I think some brands make something in both camps (luxury and highend)
> for example IWC and Chopard I thinke it is the same case with Blancpain because as you say the do make pure highend.
> 
> It is the same with a brand like Glashutte Orginal they are often "forgotten" when we talk highend.
> I think many just tend to say then first four that comes to mind when they talk about highend brands.


----------



## Watchbreath

In-house, yes and no. They make em, Frederic Piguet designs em.


ajack said:


> I really wonder why Blancpain is not high-end, but just luxury. Ok, I know that's different between high-end and luxury, but, can anyone tell me more specific?
> 
> Each Blancpain watch is made by single watchmaker, they have in-house movements, they got the most complicated watch in the world (Blancpain 1735). And Blancpain is not high-end watch?


----------



## TK-421

Frederic Piguet is going to become exclusively Blancpain. in essence there will be no more Frederic Piguet.



Watchbreath said:


> In-house, yes and no. They make em, Frederic Piguet designs em.


----------



## Watchbreath

Maybe they'll change their name to, Freddy P!


TK-421 said:


> Frederic Piguet is going to become exclusively Blancpain. in essence there will be no more Frederic Piguet.


----------



## GWGeorge

It keeps getting bigger and bigger AND BIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whats yer favorite high end ice cream? HE HE HA HA!


----------



## craniotes

TK-421 said:


> i just spoke with 2 different ADs. they both said that AP makes their non-chrono movements, and that their chrono movements are modified movements of other manufacturers.


Gotta go with Andres here (nice to see you on WUSsy, amigo); never get your info from a dealer.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## Stensbjerg

I'm not a big AP fan (all those L.E Royal Oak Off Shore just put the brand down for me)
but they still make som great watches,and AP is for sure a highend member just like PP,VC,JLC and many others.

It just take a few minutes with google as your friend to realize that.


----------



## TK-421

love it!



Watchbreath said:


> Maybe they'll change their name to, Freddy P!


----------



## Andrés

craniotes said:


> Gotta go with Andres here (nice to see you on WUSsy, amigo); never get your info from a dealer.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


 Hi Adam. Nice to see you too. I´ve been here for a while but currently spend more time on TZ.


----------



## TK-421

adam,

got this back from AP. they do NOT use ETAs, but they do use the Valjoux 7750 design. i was wrong about ETA, but not all of their movements are in-house.

you should look at anonimo sometime.

*************

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your request and your interest in our brand Audemars Piguet.

Regarding your enquiry, the level of finishing of our calibres remains at the forefront and corresponds to what is best in the Haute Horlogerie.

Our proprietary calibres are entirely made in-house. However, we do not manufacture all our movements. We are collaborating closely with historical partners of the Vallée de Joux in Switzerland, and more importantly, we do not use any ETA Calibre.

I remain at your disposal should you need any further information.

With our best regards,

Audemars Piguet (Marketing) S.A.
Route de France 16 / PO Box 16
CH - 1348 Le Brassus / Switzerland



craniotes said:


> Actually, I was just messin' with you there, trooper; AP has never used ETA movements and never will. They are one of the three so-called great houses of watchmaking (along with Patek and Vacheron), and their reputation is richly deserved.
> 
> As has been pointed out already, AP has used JLC movements in the past, and indeed some of their movements today are based on JLC designs, but then Vacheron and Patek are also guilty of using JLC as well. No shame in that game, IMO.
> 
> "Casemaker watches"? Like your Anonimo?
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


----------



## craniotes

Er, no, they don't use the Valjoux 7750, which is an ETA movement. Valle de Joux is a watch-making region in Switzerland that plays host to a number of manufacturers, including La Grande Maison, Jaeger-LeCoultre, who collaborated with AP on the cal. 920 movement which is found in, among other pieces, the iconic Royal Oak "Jumbo".

Regards,
Adam

PS - I have had the good fortune of handling several pieces from Anonimo in person, from a 10th Anniversary Polluce all the way up to the Professionale Chronograph (what a monster), and I find them to be very nice watches. However, in no way, shape or form do they compare to AP in terms of case, bracelet or movement finishing. Same goes for dials and handsets.


----------



## StufflerMike

TK-421 said:


> ...they do NOT use ETAs, but they do use the* Valjoux 7750* design.


On what is this statement based if I may ask ? AP clearly wrote that they co-operate with historical partners in the Vallée de Joux which is a region where a lot of small watchmakinmg enterprises are located.


----------



## mleok

AP is known to use JLC movements, as does Vacheron Constantin.


----------



## Stensbjerg

mleok said:


> AP is known to use JLC movements, as does Vacheron Constantin.


True AP,VC and PP have all used JLC movement and some of movements they make them self today and call inhouse is still based on JLC know-how
JLC is for sure a watchmakers watchb-)


----------



## TK-421

i was told by an AP rep that their chronos are not in-house. their chronos are identical to the 7750. hence the "design" is the same. there is no denying that.



stuffler said:


> On what is this statement based if I may ask ? AP clearly wrote that they co-operate with historical partners in the Vallée de Joux which is a region where a lot of small watchmakinmg enterprises are located.


----------



## TK-421

handled a bunch of APs and thought they were very nice, but found many watches at half the price to be equal in finish. as for the 7750, i do not mean they use the actual movements, but the design is the same and they have someone else make their chronos. people treal AP as if they are completely integrated from start to finish like JLC.



craniotes said:


> Er, no, they don't use the Valjoux 7750, which is an ETA movement. Valle de Joux is a watch-making region in Switzerland that plays host to a number of manufacturers, including La Grande Maison, Jaeger-LeCoultre, who collaborated with AP on the cal. 920 movement which is found in, among other pieces, the iconic Royal Oak "Jumbo".
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - I have had the good fortune of handling several pieces from Anonimo in person, from a 10th Anniversary Polluce all the way up to the Professionale Chronograph (what a monster), and I find them to be very nice watches. However, in no way, shape or form do they compare to AP in terms of case, bracelet or movement finishing. Same goes for dials and handsets.


----------



## craniotes

TK-421 said:


> handled a bunch of APs and thought they were very nice, but found many watches at half the price to be equal in finish. as for the 7750, i do not mean they use the actual movements, but the design is the same and they have someone else make their chronos. people treal AP as if they are completely integrated from start to finish like JLC.


I think it's great that you've found many watches that are the equal of AP in terms of finishing for half the price. Considering that over 35% of the cost of every AP that leaves the factory goes into the finishing of the case and the movement, all of which is done by hand, that's pretty amazing. I hope that you've bought a few of them. |>

Oh, and you're right, I can't deny that the dial layout of the Royal Oak Offshore Chronograph is similar to the Valjoux 7750, never mind that the registers don't correspond to one another, their internal architecture is completely different and there's no comparison in terms of movement finishing. Seriously, though, compare it with an ETA 2894 if you must, but drop the 7750 schtick already, because you're not doing yourself any favors here.

Regards,
Adam

PS - You can talk to as many ADs and reps as you want, but objectively speaking, AP is a top-tier manufacture and is widely regarded as one of the best of the best by knowledgeable WIS the world over for good reason. Deal with it and move on; there are plenty of other windmills to tilt at.


----------



## Hammondo

Stensbjerg said:


> True AP,VC and PP have all used JLC movement and some of movements they make them self today and call inhouse is still based on JLC know-how
> JLC is for sure a watchmakers watchb-)


Based on your signature......I consider Grand Seiko's as high-end and would happily sell some of my Omega's (Luxury watches) to get one. Video Review of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive GMT SBGE001 - YouTube
what say some of you?


----------



## Stensbjerg

Hammondo said:


> Based on your signature......I consider Grand Seiko's as high-end and would happily sell some of my Omega's (Luxury watches) to get one. Video Review of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive GMT SBGE001 - YouTube
> what say some of you?


I also see Grand Seikos as high-end and I think Seiko has a value for money and a innovation (as we see with the SD technology) 
many others brands only can dream about.

Just think of what hype and buzz a swiss made brand would have made if they hat come up with this idea, 
to me Seiko do not get enough kredit for what they do on many watch forums but as I hat said before we all have our preferencesb-)

There is no doubt in my mind that all brand world wide has a great respect for Seiko they just don't say it out loud
and to me thats says it all b-)


----------



## iim7v7im7

Hammondo said:


> Based on your signature......I consider Grand Seiko's as high-end and would happily sell some of my Omega's (Luxury watches) to get one. Video Review of the Grand Seiko Spring Drive GMT SBGE001 - YouTube
> what say some of you?


I think that this thread has sort of lost its course from the original question. This forum is a catch all for "high-end" brands that do not have teir own forum at WUS. Grand Seiko are superb high end watches that should be discussed in the Seiko forum. I thought that this forum was for high-end brands without a seperate brand forum. Brands like:

A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
Audemars Piguet
Blancpain (Swatch Group)
Breguet (Swatch Group)
Cartier (Richemont)
Chopard
Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
Jacquet Droz (Swatch Group)
Montlanc (Richemont)
Patek Phillipe
Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
Ulysse Nardin


----------



## TK-421

thanks for getting back on track.



iim7v7im7 said:


> I think that this thread has sort of lost its course from the original question. This forum is a catch all for "high-end" brands that do not have teir own forum at WUS. Grand Seiko are superb high end watches that should be discussed in the Seiko forum. I thought that this forum was for high-end brands without a seperate brand forum. Brands like:
> 
> A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain (Swatch Group)
> Breguet (Swatch Group)
> Cartier (Richemont)
> Chopard
> Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
> Jacquet Droz (Swatch Group)
> Montlanc (Richemont)
> Patek Phillipe
> Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
> Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
> Ulysse Nardin


----------



## TK-421

er, um, it's not a schtick.

ps-i have nothing to deal with, i never bought an AP. i believe you that 35% of the cost is in the case, but that does not directly correlate to the retail price. there are watches with the same finish quality at half the price. the retail mark up is huge, the cost to make an AP is no more than many watches. the real cost is all the APs on the shirts of PGA players.



craniotes said:


> I think it's great that you've found many watches that are the equal of AP in terms of finishing for half the price. Considering that over 35% of the cost of every AP that leaves the factory goes into the finishing of the case and the movement, all of which is done by hand, that's pretty amazing. I hope that you've bought a few of them. |>
> 
> Oh, and you're right, I can't deny that the dial layout of the Royal Oak Offshore Chronograph is similar to the Valjoux 7750, never mind that the registers don't correspond to one another, their internal architecture is completely different and there's no comparison in terms of movement finishing. Seriously, though, compare it with an ETA 2894 if you must, but drop the 7750 schtick already, because you're not doing yourself any favors here.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - You can talk to as many ADs and reps as you want, but objectively speaking, AP is a top-tier manufacture and is widely regarded as one of the best of the best by knowledgeable WIS the world over for good reason. Deal with it and move on; there are plenty of other windmills to tilt at.


----------



## craniotes

Hey, trooper, you're the one who went off track with your woefully misbegotten and quixotic mission to prove that AP was using Valjoux movements, and now that you've finally been shot down in that regard, you're attempting to imply that, what, an Anonimo's case finishing is the equal of an AP's? Please. (And if not your beloved Anonimo, then who?) So don't go trying to take the higher ground here, because no one is buying what you're selling. Oh, and trust me, we are all more than aware of the insane markups that go hand in hand with the luxury goods industry, but thanks for sharing anyway.

Look, you want an opinion, fine, you've got it. Pity that it isn't an informed one, though. 

Regards,
Adam

PS - Still, I do hope that you bought some of those half-the-price-but-all-the-quality-of-AP watches you're going on about. What a bargain! :-!

PPS - AP's brand ambassadors aren't paid, but of course you already knew that.


----------



## Aliisloo

TK-421 said:


> er, um, it's not a schtick.
> 
> ps-i have nothing to deal with, i never bought an AP. i believe you that 35% of the cost is in the case, but that does not directly correlate to the retail price. there are watches with the same finish quality at half the price. the retail mark up is huge, the cost to make an AP is no more than many watches. the real cost is all the APs on the shirts of PGA players.


In all fairness, it is hard to argue against AP being a high end. You might not like the aesthetics of some of the ROO models and too many LEs associated with rather mediocre celebrities diluting the brand (Jarno Trulli? seriously? What were you thinking AP!). But the place of AP in high horology is undisputed with their contribution in design, complications or straight up great looking dress watches like current Jules Audemars range.

By the way, I read somewhere that celebrities associated with LEs are not paid anything by AP. In fact they come to AP for the request to make a limited edition most of the time. I don't know same is true for those who are simply sponsored, like PGA golfers. I doubt any golfer will wear a badge without paid!

Ali


----------



## craniotes

Nope, the golfers aren't paid either. In some instances they're already fans of the brand and collectors themselves, and in others AP donates to charities of their choosing.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## Janne

Some brands are manufacturing only High End Pieces. Those are easy to call High End>
The problem arises on brands like IWC even Omega. In IWC's case, some movements are ETA, some not. Omega, I believe use maily movements based on ETA? But, they make some truly astonishing pieces, very High End!

What abour Rolex?


----------



## Lencoth

I would find it much easier to establish what watches are high-end than brands.......


----------



## Janne

Yes. Much easier, as it is possibly to establish strict "High End" rules.


----------



## TK-421

hey senator,

i was told information by 2 different dealers. i contacted AP. the result was that they do not use ETA, but use other manufacturers movements. you say that "in the past" they used JLC. this reads to me as if you are saying they are currently making all of their movements since this was all in the past, i apologize for thinking that you were implying that in the "present" they make their all their own movements. you never said, but using the word "past" made me think that you were implying that everying now is in-house. my mistake.

you state that their cases are 35% of the cost, i am not arguing that. however, whether they pay the golfer directly, or give it to a charity, is moot. they are spending money on advertising. this is their biggest cost. so please stop with the brand ambassadors schtick that they are angels working for free. nothing is for free since AP is giving money to their charities of choice.

as for the quality of their watches, i am not arguing that they are not great. i like AP. what i am saying is that i do not understand why an AP is double or triple the cost of an Hublot, Omega, IWC, Rolex, Panerai, Girrard Perragaux, Bremont, VC, insert brand, etc. i have handled many different watches and did not find the finish of the AP to be above and beyond all other watches in order to justify that much more money. so if my eye test did not see a huge difference, then it must be on the inside of the watch. but since some APs were using other manufacturer's movements then i did not understand the difference from say the VC.

i understand paying more for a watch that is completely made by one company. ALS for example.

i stood corrected when AP told me that they do not use ETA, but bear in mind the 2 dealers that told me seemed reputable. believe half of what you hear. this would mean that they were right that AP does not make all their movements, but wrong about ETA movements. i am glad that AP cleared this up for me.

i am not on any mission to prove anything. just wanted to know why so much more expensive.

you seemed to have a mission to prove that AP does not use ETA movements. this has been proven, you were/are correct.

but i still disagree that an AP case is worth twice the price of some watches. for example. i looked at APs and VCs. i found both to have nice cases. however, the VC was half the price of the AP. neither watch had an in-house movement. so why twice the cost? imo it must be branding. you can say that my anonimo is not as luxurious as the AP, but the quality of the AP would have to be 7 times better. i don't think that is the case either.

i understand that each watch i own is marked up because of the brand name. the more luxurious the brand name, the higher the mark up. this is part of what we pay for when buying these watches. your comment about me finding watches at half the price of an AP at the same quality being an outrageous, seems a bit sophmoric on your part. you should ad a "nah nah nah nah boo boo" at the end of it after the thumbs up. i am sure there are people out there that would agree that it is possible to get a watch as good as an AP for less money.



craniotes said:


> Hey, trooper, you're the one who went off track with your woefully misbegotten and quixotic mission to prove that AP was using Valjoux movements, and now that you've finally been shot down in that regard, you're attempting to imply that, what, an Anonimo's case finishing is the equal of an AP's? Please. (And if not your beloved Anonimo, then who?) So don't go trying to take the higher ground here, because no one is buying what you're selling. Oh, and trust me, we are all more than aware of the insane markups that go hand in hand with the luxury goods industry, but thanks for sharing anyway.
> 
> Look, you want an opinion, fine, you've got it. Pity that it isn't an informed one, though.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - Still, I do hope that you bought some of those half-the-price-but-all-the-quality-of-AP watches you're going on about. What a bargain! :-!
> 
> PPS - AP's brand ambassadors aren't paid, but of course you already knew that.


----------



## craniotes

C'mon, re-read your posts and you'll see that first, your mission was to prove that AP used ETA movements. No go. Then you moved on to the ubiquitous Valjoux 7750. Shot down. Finally, as a last resort, you decided that AP's high costs aren't justified by their finishing. Your argument? That the gains in terms of finishing should follow a linear price curve (ah, how I do love this old chestnut; the last resort of the newbs and the haters). So, how many times better must the finishing of a Thomas Prescher triple-axis tourbillon be than your vaunted Anonimo to justify its $625K price tag? 

Yup, the question here doesn't revolve around my mission, but rather yours. I'm merely trying to point out the inaccuracies of your statements so that folks visiting this thread looking for information don't get led astray.

Like I said, if you want an opinion, you're welcome to it, but do try and make it an informed one.

Regards,
Adam

PS - Oh, and you do realize that APs range in price from just under $20K to well over $300K (more, for their bespoke pieces), right? So, I have to ask, which VC were you comparing to which AP? I was in VC's new boutique just the other day where the cheapest watch I tried on, a white gold Patrimony, was over $30K, and the finish of my $18.9K Diver was definitely on par with it (I didn't bother with the Overseas, since I know from past experience that the average Royal Oak case sports a much nicer and more intricate finish). 

PPS - The $60K Patrimony LE I looked at? It houses a JLC-derived automatic movement -- for shame, for shame! :roll:


----------



## TK-421

that's where you're wrong brah. had no mission. first thing i was asking was why were Hublot and AP so expensive when they used standard movements. i was told that these two used ETA. i made the mistake of trusting two ADs. when you stated otherwise i checked with AP because why should i believe you before an AD. i told you that you were correct about the ETA movements, but i was correct about them using other movements.

my original question was about why was the price so much higher than comparable watches. you never answered that, nobody did. imo zenith makes fine watches and the VC that i handled seemed as good as AP. now you may be more qualified to determine the AP casing is better, but to my naked eyes i did not see or feel a difference. so, i couldn't see the price difference justification.

this argument will go round and round because this could be about cars or golf clubs or movies.

so er, um you will continue to think that AP is worth is the money and i will continue to think that it is a great watch that has a higher mark-up because little E wears it on entourage. i have no problem with that.

as far as my anonimo goes its beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



craniotes said:


> C'mon, re-read your posts and you'll see that first, your mission was to prove that AP used ETA movements. No go. Then you moved on to the ubiquitous Valjoux 7750. Shot down. Finally, as a last resort, you decided that AP's high costs aren't justified by their finishing. Your argument? That the gains in terms of finishing should follow a linear price curve (ah, how I do love this old chestnut; the last resort of the newbs and the haters). So, how many times better must the finishing of a Thomas Prescher triple-axis tourbillon be than your vaunted Anonimo to justify its $625K price tag?
> 
> Yup, the question here doesn't revolve around my mission, but rather yours. I'm merely trying to point out the inaccuracies of your statements so that folks visiting this thread looking for information don't get led astray.
> 
> Like I said, if you want an opinion, you're welcome to it, but do try and make it an informed one.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - Oh, and you do realize that APs range in price from just under $20K to well over $300K (more, for their bespoke pieces), right? So, I have to ask, which VC were you comparing to which AP? I was in VC's new boutique just the other day where the cheapest watch I tried on, a white gold Patrimony, was over $30K, and the finish of my $18.9K Diver was definitely on par with it (I didn't bother with the Overseas, since I know from past experience that the average Royal Oak case sports a much nicer and more intricate finish).
> 
> PPS - The $60K Patrimony LE I looked at? It houses a JLC-derived automatic movement -- for shame, for shame! :roll:


----------



## craniotes

Again, you're off-base with your insinuation that AP pays for the facetime they get on Entourage. They don't. Period. End of story. So, while you might enjoy what you feel is your your nudge-nudge-wink-wink moment, once more all you're doing is displaying a complete and utter lack of any factual information. Can you see at all how this might be misleading?

Look, it's one thing to ask questions and seek answers, it's another entirely to couch your opinions as facts, which they are most assuredly not (and yes, that's what you did with your whole ETA/Valjoux odyssey). As for case/dial/movement finishing, true, that's a much more subjective realm, but again, your opinion in this regard is just that, an opinion, and one that clearly isn't based on a whole lot of hands-on evaluation. As someone who owns and has owned pieces from the big three, and who has access to a wide variety of pieces from marques as varied as H. Moser & Cie, FP Journe, Kari Voutilainen, and yes, even your ever-green A. Lange & Sohn, I feel quite safe in stating that AP's reputation for case/dial/movement finishing is well deserved and reflected adequately by their pricing structure. Yes, this is an opinion, but it's also an informed one that came about from quite a bit of research and fondling (if, like me, you're a man of limited means, I don't recommend spending too much time in the company of some of my friends, as jealousy is all but unavoidable).

Of course, since you refuse to give, and so do I, I agree that this debate has become tiresome. To this end, I promise not to add anything further after whatever comment you chose to post next. I will say, however, that it is always refreshing to come across someone who sticks to their guns without resorting to personal attacks. To this end, I salute you.

Now get back to your post.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## Aliisloo

So what have we proven so far. AP doesn't use ETA. Their movement finishing is great but not as good as ALS. Golfers are over paid. And JLC movements rock! 

Now I am going to look for my nearest Anonimo dealer. 

Peace

Ali

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## iim7v7im7

Adam (and TK-421),

This is a silly thread. 

Of course AP makes some of the finest watches out there and trying to linearize the diminishing returns on exclusive luxury items does not work in watches, automobiles, boats etc. I am exhausted reading this, but like a car wreck, I can't look away (ah the internet...). 

The original thread asked which brands belong here? Others have made the cogent comment that which watches belong here (vs. brands) which I happen to agree with. Unfortunately, forums are organized by brands or category (I see many non-dive watches discussed in dive forums actually). One can look at the brand forums and see if a watch that they want to discuss is there and if not they can go to an interest forum (dive, independents, German etc.) or a general forum. Why was this forum created vs. the public forum? I suspect as a catch-all to discuss a variety of luxury horology brands that do not have representation and may merit a seperate dicussion from a general forum. I have suggested some common brands that do not have forum representation. It does not mean that these are the only high-end brands but these are the most common.

A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
Audemars Piguet
Blancpain (Swatch Group)
Breguet (Swatch Group)
Cartier (Richemont)
Chopard
Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
Jacquet Droz (Swatch Group)
Montlanc (Richemont)
Patek Phillipe
Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
Ulysse Nardin

There are MANY other brands and watches from brands who cover a broad range of quality.

Stick a fork in it. Its cooked.



Bob


----------



## craniotes

Mmmmmm... The higher ground. Well played, sir.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## Aliisloo

iim7v7im7 said:


> Adam (and TK-421),
> 
> This is a silly thread.
> 
> Of course AP makes some of the finest watches out there and trying to linearize the diminishing returns on exclusive luxury items does not work in watches, automobiles, boats etc. I am exhausted reading this, but like a car wreck, I can't look away (ah the internet...).
> 
> The original thread asked which brands belong here? Others have made the cogent comment that which watches belong here (vs. brands) which I happen to agree with. Unfortunately, forums are organized by brands or category (I see many non-dive watches discussed in dive forums actually). One can look at the brand forums and see if a watch that they want to discuss is there and if not they can go to an interest forum (dive, independents, German etc.) or a general forum. Why was this forum created vs. the public forum? I suspect as a catch-all to discuss a variety of luxury horology brands that do not have representation and may merit a seperate dicussion from a general forum. I have suggested some common brands that do not have forum representation. It does not mean that these are the only high-end brands but these are the most common.
> 
> A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain (Swatch Group)
> Breguet (Swatch Group)
> Cartier (Richemont)
> Chopard
> Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
> Jacquet Droz (Swatch Group)
> Montlanc (Richemont)
> Patek Phillipe
> Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
> Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
> Ulysse Nardin
> 
> There are MANY other brands and watches from brands who cover a broad range of quality.
> 
> Stick a fork in it. Its cooked.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob


Bob.

Fair list and argument, with one comment. I think this will also be the right forum to discuss topics which relate to more than one high end brands, even if they have their own forum. E.g.. Zenith vs GO this or that.

Ali

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## aznseank

Bob.. among brands on your list.. I dont know why mont blanc and cartier are on there. Did you flip your maurice lacroix for them?lol (don't take it personally..just joking here) MB is no where near high end. It's below omega. It is on par with perhaps Linde Werdelin. Also Jacquet Droz has yet to be prove itself as a powerhouse. They rely on their fairy tales for their marketing scheme. I think Franck Muller would be a fine addition to the list tho. Chopard is also questionable.

Bob's list
A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
Audemars Piguet
Blancpain (Swatch Group)
Breguet (Swatch Group)
Cartier (Richemont)
Chopard
Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
Jacquet Droz (Swatch Group)
Montlanc (Richemont)
Patek Phillipe
Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
Ulysse Nardin

My list
A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
Audemars Piguet
Blancpain (Swatch Group)
Breguet (Swatch Group)
Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
Patek Phillipe
Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
Franck Muller
*Ulysse Nardin
*JLC (in terms of movement...definately highend)
*IWC
*Chopard

*not all models are high end


----------



## iim7v7im7

There is nothing magical about the names that I proposed and yours may be a "better" list than mine. I was not attempting to measure the companies just think of some which did not have parent forums like Omega, IWC or JLC etc. I was not ranking companies over one another just trying to think of homeless companies. If someone on WIS is buying a Chopard LUC, Jacquet Droz, Montblanc Nicolas Rieussec, Cartier Tourbullon or as you suggest Franck Muller I was thinking of that they might get some answers in this forum. One can come here to talk about ANY watch they want. A participant may now and then suggest that they might find a better answer in another forum thats all.



Bob



aznseank said:


> Bob.. among brands on your list.. I dont know why mont blanc and cartier are on there. Did you flip your maurice lacroix for them?lol (don't take it personally..just joking here) MB is no where near high end. It's below omega. It is on par with perhaps Linde Werdelin. Also Jacquet Droz has yet to be prove itself as a powerhouse. They rely on their fairy tales for their marketing scheme. I think Franck Muller would be a fine addition to the list tho. Chopard is also questionable.
> 
> Bob's list
> A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain (Swatch Group)
> Breguet (Swatch Group)
> Cartier (Richemont)
> Chopard
> Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
> Jacquet Droz (Swatch Group)
> Montlanc (Richemont)
> Patek Phillipe
> Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
> Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
> Ulysse Nardin
> 
> My list
> A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain (Swatch Group)
> Breguet (Swatch Group)
> Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
> Patek Phillipe
> Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
> Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
> Franck Muller
> *Ulysse Nardin
> *JLC (in terms of movement...definately highend)
> *IWC
> *Chopard
> 
> *not all models are high end


----------



## craniotes

aznseank said:


> Bob.. among brands on your list.. I dont know why mont blanc and cartier are on there. Did you flip your maurice lacroix for them?lol (don't take it personally..just joking here) MB is no where near high end. It's below omega. It is on par with perhaps Linde Werdelin. Also Jacquet Droz has yet to be prove itself as a powerhouse. They rely on their fairy tales for their marketing scheme. I think Franck Muller would be a fine addition to the list tho. Chopard is also questionable.
> 
> My list
> A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain (Swatch Group)
> Breguet (Swatch Group)
> Girard-Perrgaux (Sowind)
> Patek Phillipe
> Roger Dubuis (Richemont)
> Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
> Franck Muller
> *Ulysse Nardin
> *JLC (in terms of movement...definately highend)
> *IWC
> *Chopard
> 
> *not all models are high end


I would agree with your asterixed brands for the most part. Sure, they each offer more affordable models, and in the case of Chopard, IWC and UN (and yes, even Franck Muller) they use ETA movements, but on the balance, they qualify (surely no one is going to argue that a Portuguese Minute Repeater, Freak or any Chopard with a L.U.C 1.96 under the hood is anything other than high end).

Also, JLC and Jacquet Droz qualify unconditionally, IMO, but hey, that's just me.

Regards,
Adam

PS - Montblanc still has some work to do, but their Reiussec looks pretty "high end" to these eyes...


----------



## TK-421

would most agree that there are few "brands" that are completely high-end, and that it is more about the individual watch? for example not all IWC are high-end. so i can't go posting pics of my portofino here as "high-end". kind of like the cadillac caterra of IWC.


----------



## iim7v7im7

As I said i an earlier posting in this thread....

A brand being "high-end" is a somwhat amorphous concept meaning different things to different people as others have said. To *me,* low production volumes, high-level of finish, in-house movement manufacture and innovative features are at the heart of "high-end". Brand pricing among luxury brands is very much driven by the percentage of the watch line made from precious metals vs. steel or titanium etc. To me the brand's were the majority of the watches that they offer are high-end are:

A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
Audemars Piguet
Blancpain (Swatch Group)
Breguet (Swatch Group)
Patek Phillipe
Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
There are of course many others as well, but these half dozen fit the bill as brands in my opinion.

Bob


TK-421 said:


> would most agree that there are few "brands" that are completely high-end, and that it is more about the individual watch? for example not all IWC are high-end. so i can't go posting pics of my portofino here as "high-end". kind of like the cadillac caterra of IWC.


----------



## TK-421

i think if you added JLC and Girard-Perragaux to this list then you would have the High End Security Council.



iim7v7im7 said:


> As I said i an earlier posting in this thread....
> 
> A brand being "high-end" is a somwhat amorphous concept meaning different things to different people as others have said. To *me,* low production volumes, high-level of finish, in-house movement manufacture and innovative features are at the heart of "high-end". Brand pricing among luxury brands is very much driven by the percentage of the watch line made from precious metals vs. steel or titanium etc. To me the brand's were the majority of the watches that they offer are high-end are:
> 
> A. Lange & Sohne (Richemont)
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain (Swatch Group)
> Breguet (Swatch Group)
> Patek Phillipe
> Vacheron Constantin (Richemont)
> There are of course many others as well, but these half dozen fit the bill as brands in my opinion.
> 
> Bob


----------



## m80sarecool

I am a little surprised to see how little mention does GO gets as a high end brand, of course they have some sub 10,000 watches but the finish is beautiful and the movements are in house and if you see their Senator chronometer, you'll fall in love like I did last week, now all I need is 28,000 bucks!

Anyone else here would consider GO high end?


----------



## Aliisloo

m80sarecool said:


> I am a little surprised to see how little mention does GO gets as a high end brand, of course they have some sub 10,000 watches but the finish is beautiful and the movements are in house and if you see their Senator chronometer, you'll fall in love like I did last week, now all I need is 28,000 bucks!
> 
> Anyone else here would consider GO high end?


Absolutely high end. I love GO. Their movement finish is second only to ALS, PP and AP in my opinion.

Ali

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## TK-421

are Van der Gang watches luxury or high-end? i love the looks of these.

Van der Gang Watches

http://www.vandergangwatches.nl/?lang=uk&main=collectie&sub=heren


----------



## TK-421

anyone?



TK-421 said:


> are Van der Gang watches luxury or high-end? i love the looks of these.
> 
> Van der Gang Watches
> 
> http://www.vandergangwatches.nl/?lang=uk&main=collectie&sub=heren


----------



## aznseank

looks like an IWC portuguese rip off to me. Not high class. They stole the iconic design of IWC portguese. Any respectable watch company would never do such a thing. One of the main reasons why Tag and OMega will always be ranked below a Rolex is due to its lack of original designs. THe iconic Rolex Sub is copied by countless lower brands in an attempt to pass their watches to look like a Rolex. So I would say no TK. ITs the same with Chronoswiss and Breguet. Back couple years ago, CHronoswiss offered coin edge cases and breguet hands. Last year, Chronoswiss realized that they will be nothing but a Breguet knock off, so they got rid of all that. (this is evident from their sirius vs triple moon calendar) I think the same applies here as well.


----------



## iim7v7im7

So many watches borrow design elements from one another. In regard to Chronoswiss, they still utillize coined bezels and Breguet hands on a number of their current models (even some just introduced like the Balance Chronograph) so I don't think your theory regarding their design direction is likely true. There is no doubt that they borrow heavilly from Breguet in those features and dial guilloche as well.

Their brand DNA is driven by coined edges, turnip crown, display case back and lug design. I think that their newer watches were more likely spurred by trying to diversify their line to attract buyers with differing aesthetics. BTW, the fact that Breguet and many other companies are all employing sapphire display case backs today on many of their models is a feature developed by Chronoswiss. These where introduced by Chronoswiss in 1987 and are common among watches today.





aznseank said:


> looks like an IWC portuguese rip off to me. Not high class. They stole the iconic design of IWC portguese. Any respectable watch company would never do such a thing. One of the main reasons why Tag and OMega will always be ranked below a Rolex is due to its lack of original designs. THe iconic Rolex Sub is copied by countless lower brands in an attempt to pass their watches to look like a Rolex. So I would say no TK. ITs the same with Chronoswiss and Breguet. Back couple years ago, CHronoswiss offered coin edge cases and breguet hands. Last year, Chronoswiss realized that they will be nothing but a Breguet knock off, so they got rid of all that. (this is evident from their sirius vs triple moon calendar) I think the same applies here as well.


----------



## Stensbjerg

It's all a matter of the eyes looking at it and taste
and we will never agree completely :-d

There is so many ways to do it some is what I call a look a like,others call it a tribute
some take so many design elements from a expensive brand that you have to go really close to tell the difference
and then the say they just have let them self inspire:roll:

I'm not the biggest fan of some of JLCs divers design although I'm a big JLC fan
they are a bit buzzy to me and don't have such a "strong" design as I see it.

But what I really like when they first came out was that they have there own look with JLC DNA
and they did not look like something else on the marked.

Make sure your brand have it's own DNA 
and can be know from all the others on the marked (to me that is the right way to do it)


----------



## panamamike

What is a high end watch?
Reading this thread is pretty amusing, I'm surprised at the great variety of opinions and the conviction behind some of those opinions. At the end of the day, given people's opinions on the subject, I'd advocate for the creation of multiple subforums, some of the already have been created: High end mechanical vs. quartz movements.

It should be recognized if a watch is high end due to asthetic design.
+ Materials: gold/plat./diamonds
+ Name: Patek, AP, ect.
+ Complication: minute repeater, chrono.
+ Accuracy: How well the piece keeps time.
+ Workmanship: Manual labor, level of quality, time to make.

For me, all of these factors come into play to some degree. In the end if only one aspect where to be considered
I'd have to say workmanship and manual labor are the most important.

Finally, for all the talk of in house movements, complication, ect... The majority of discussion on this subforum is related to watch classification as high end or not, and is this watch worth $$$. People should discuss the merits and history of a watch rather than simply decreeing it's high end status.

Mike


----------



## netforce

@ panamamike,

Based upon the criteria, I would certainly count Parmigiani in the top of the high end watches ....​


----------



## SGexpat

At the risk of beating a seriously dead horse, so to speak, I venture a contribution. It seems at least half of the disagreement on this thread - if not more - comes down to people talking across one another because of different starting assumptions. Let me explain:
1. "High end by watch" - Posters focussing on the characteristics of a specific watch. Common conclusions posters draw are that lots of brands are high end because they make specific watches that are high end (e.g. Cartier has some amazing high end pieces and therefore they are high end, or brands like Omega have become high end since introducing their own movements in some models etc)
2. "High end by brand" Posters focussing on the totality of production / history / finish in a given brand. Conclusions here include the idea that there is a 'top tier' of brands that is hard to break into according to set criteria (there are some good criteria identified in the thread). By this approach certain brands like PP, ALS, VC are all definitely high end, with some brands subjectively there or on the edge, e.g. JLC.

Let me say I think #1 has the greatest possibility of reducing subjectivity. I mean, people largely know a high end watch when they see it (except for quality of finish which a lot of people don't understand), and it takes the brand dialogue out of it. However, there's a lot of merit to tiering brands. .. I learned a lot about the watch world by reading similar - seemingly circular debates - on this and other forums a few years back about which brand is more 'high end' or 'better' than others. At the end of the day different brands cater to different needs and wants of customers and no brand is inherently 'better'. But - we can if we want to - tier the brands to help us and newcomers better navigate the watch world. We can call the tiers High End, then Luxury, then Fashion, and then Affordable etc. or choose whatever tiers you want. Criteria can be placed on High End which are logical - i.e., overwhelming majority are in house movements with significant or 100 percent hand finishing (this gets rid of this "PP makes a quartz" or "Cartier has a high end watch" objections which fundamentally bring us back to Option #1). And so on. 

Look, there'll always be subjectivity and I would never presume to decide for any other WIS how they should view the world. So we'll never get away from that aspect. However, I do think we could reach much broader agreement if each post is clear- are we talking about a Brand or a Watch? A fashion brand may indeed make a high end watch and a high end brand may make a fashion watch etc.

Just a thought.


----------



## TK-421

this is very well said. the original title does state brand, not watches. #2 is what should be debated. i think the brands you mentioned were spot on. i would say JLC is in there. Zenith on the cusp maybe? AP?

that is what i was looking to discuss more so than an individual watches. i mean IWC and Hamilton use a lot of the same movements. so just because IWC has some stellar pieces, as a brand are they top tier?



SGexpat said:


> At the risk of beating a seriously dead horse, so to speak, I venture a contribution. It seems at least half of the disagreement on this thread - if not more - comes down to people talking across one another because of different starting assumptions. Let me explain:
> 1. "High end by watch" - Posters focussing on the characteristics of a specific watch. Common conclusions posters draw are that lots of brands are high end because they make specific watches that are high end (e.g. Cartier has some amazing high end pieces and therefore they are high end, or brands like Omega have become high end since introducing their own movements in some models etc)
> 2. "High end by brand" Posters focussing on the totality of production / history / finish in a given brand. Conclusions here include the idea that there is a 'top tier' of brands that is hard to break into according to set criteria (there are some good criteria identified in the thread). By this approach certain brands like PP, ALS, VC are all definitely high end, with some brands subjectively there or on the edge, e.g. JLC.
> 
> Let me say I think #1 has the greatest possibility of reducing subjectivity. I mean, people largely know a high end watch when they see it (except for quality of finish which a lot of people don't understand), and it takes the brand dialogue out of it. However, there's a lot of merit to tiering brands. .. I learned a lot about the watch world by reading similar - seemingly circular debates - on this and other forums a few years back about which brand is more 'high end' or 'better' than others. At the end of the day different brands cater to different needs and wants of customers and no brand is inherently 'better'. But - we can if we want to - tier the brands to help us and newcomers better navigate the watch world. We can call the tiers High End, then Luxury, then Fashion, and then Affordable etc. or choose whatever tiers you want. Criteria can be placed on High End which are logical - i.e., overwhelming majority are in house movements with significant or 100 percent hand finishing (this gets rid of this "PP makes a quartz" or "Cartier has a high end watch" objections which fundamentally bring us back to Option #1). And so on.
> 
> Look, there'll always be subjectivity and I would never presume to decide for any other WIS how they should view the world. So we'll never get away from that aspect. However, I do think we could reach much broader agreement if each post is clear- are we talking about a Brand or a Watch? A fashion brand may indeed make a high end watch and a high end brand may make a fashion watch etc.
> 
> Just a thought.


----------



## SGexpat

Maybe we could go this way. Lots of thoughts borrowed from previous posters so I am not passing this off as my own.

High End Brand Criteria (* means a minimum criteria, and + means it helps but maybe not required in all cases)
*Overwhelming majority or 100% of production run feature in house movements with hand finishing of the highest standards 
*Overwhelming majority of components besides the movement are hand made or hand finished and a bare minimum of parts of mass produced. (An implication is that high volume brands rarely meet this criteria)
*The brand demonstrates consistent and long run ability (i.e. 5-10 years plus - I don't favor the decades as litmus test approach) to both produce time pieces with significant complications and also innovate those complications over time. Complications should be available in flagship models from the brand and not produced only as limited editions to demonstrate prowess.
*Materials are of the highest grade. 
+Innovations in the use of materials or creation of alloys / production processes may play a significant role in the brand identity
*New movements should be designed / introduced periodically
*Watches with differing sizes, shapes, and functionality should be using different movements which logically fit the sizes and shapes being presented
+The brand is able to demonstrate prowess and design leadership across different types of watches (e.g. Sport vs Casual vs Ladies)

Luxury
*The large majority of production run feature in house movements with high quality hand finishing
*While key components beyond the movement may be mass produced the quality should be impeccable (e.g. polished or brushed high grade steel etc)
*Materials are of the highest grade. 
*New movements should be designed / introduced periodically
+The brand is able to demonstrate prowess and design leadership across different types of watches (e.g. Sport vs Casual vs Ladies)

Below this level others can think about what fits in for Fashion or Affordable categories etc

To address queries on a couple brands that might sit in between. I love JLC as a brand but still I question whether they are a truly High End brand. They are definitely close and might be on the highest end of Luxury timepieces. I'm glad they are welcome on this forum. They meet most of those criteria. That said, the quality of the finishing on the movements does not seem to match up in my estimation to ALS, VC, or PP. Anyway, I am open to be convinced as I'm not an expert. Zenith I think falls down on a couple of points around varying movement designs / sizes for different purposes and innovation of the core movement line in particular. I really like the brand and have owned them in the past.

I definitely see Rolex (which I also own!), Omega, Cartier and many other recognizable names as being in the Luxury segment .. now some are 'upwardly mobile' and are doing more and more of higher end watch making .. but the brand as a whole don't match the criteria of High End using the above model.

I hope this helps!


----------



## SGexpat

Here I'll do a few more while I'm at it. I'm omitting brands I'm not familiar enough with in terms of movements / product line, how they innovate and/or I have not handled closely enough to inspect the quality of the finish etc. Brands I don't know well enough include AP, Breguet, UN, the niche independent houses (Dufour, FP journey etc), although I suspect most or all of these qualify easily as high end... Just a reminder this segmentation is not an attempt at making one brand 'better' than another. Its just a segmentation exercise.

High End
PP
ALS
VC
GO (might be on the lower end of High End but I think they still might qualify)

Luxury
JLC 
IWC
Panerai
Zenith
Cartier
Rolex
Grand Seiko

Below Luxury (Fashion, or Affordable watches)
Tag, Seiko, Longines, Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, etc


----------



## solowmodel

AP is without a doubt high end.


----------



## TK-421

i think darren mcfadden is every bit as good.



solowmodel said:


> AP is without a doubt high end.


----------



## 31 Jewels

This is a very interesting thread to read. Its a loaded question thread and the reality is the watch making industry is no different than any machine making industry in the world. Any machine making industry has people always improving on other peoples ideas. Some ideas get stolen, some get sold and make people very rich. Watches today to people are out. You can thank the cell phone for that. Go to a high school and look to see how many teens wear watches today.


----------



## pifpaf

You forget Parmigiani Fleurier in this discussion.


----------



## 80talisten

Grand Seiko, high end or luxury brand?


----------



## Toronto Pete

80talisten said:


> Grand Seiko, high end or luxury brand?


Luxury, based on price points, I'd say. I'm sure Seiko produce some high-end pieces, but the stuff in the GS catalogue is luxury, as is Rolex, Omega etc.


----------



## TK-421

so what are they?



pifpaf said:


> You forget Parmigiani Fleurier in this discussion.


----------



## leevanlee

I would say that there is a TOTAL difference between "High End BRAND", and ''High End WATCH".
For example, AP, Patek, JLC and etc, all produce Grand Complications, Keep a sense of timeless style, and Treat Finishing as just as important as the internals of a watch. That makes them an Extremely High End Brand. The same would go for Rolex, Omega, Breitling as decent high-end names as well since they also insert a great amount of design, effort, and material on some models. However, even High end BRANDS, produce non-high end material. For example, IWC produces incredible classy, refined, well finished watches, but for example, you compare a simple entry level IWC Spitfire with lets say, A Daytona. obviously the Daytona would be more High end WATCH, with probably similar finishing efforts, but with a better movement and all. Another would be the Daytona 4130 vs the Breitling B01 on a Navitimer or Chronomat, they would almost be pretty much the same High end WATCH, but brandwise, rolex may be perceived as more high-end because of their lines of watches, more classic less tooly style, and more political top-of-the-food-chain brand ambassadors. In the end, I guess we should really separate High end BRANDS from WATCHES. Each brand has it's specialty watches, Each brand has a theme to follow as well. If VC suddenly started producing 2-3,000 dollar entry level watches with borrowed movements that are lets say.. Mickey Mouse themed...., that would surely affects its "High End Brand" Image making VC less "great", but that doesnt mean their specialty high end watches' quality would degrade. Their best of the best will still be High end WATCHES.


----------



## malioil

I certainly do agree that the reason such threads can turn into such intense arguments is due to the fact that there are no set criteria to define what a 'high-end' watch is. It is a colloquial term (not even the horological industry defines watches as 'high-end'- I'm pretty sure, like all other industries, they have about a thousand sub genres of what a watch is/fits into to establish their target market). As 'high-end' is extremely general and subjective, it does lead to some heated, yet enjoyable debating. Gentlemen, it is in threads like these that we truly show our passion for watches.

Now, here is a list I have personally drawn up to be high-end. I have not set out scientific criteria for my list, but it is what, from my experience I feel are watches that are above the usual luxury brand standard in movement, finishing/building quality, name, movement and ultimately, price point. In regards to the price point, I am only considering the prices of the watches themselves, not when studded by 20 carats of diamonds. 

Here goes ! 


Prestige/Ultra-Luxury/High-End/Exclusive

A. Lange & Sohne
Audemars Pigeut
Breguet
Blancpain (some would say they are luxury watches, but they hold a status above say, Omega and other fine luxury watchmakers) 
Chronoswiss (in the lowest end of the high end spectrum, but they nonetheless make some very fine watches)
Girard-Perregaux
Glashutte Original
Harry Winston
Hubolt (this is very debatable but their watches certainly don't fit into luxury price/image wise, and they do ultimately make sought after higher-end watches)
International Watch Company (upper end of their offerings) 
Jaquet Droz
Jaeger-LeCoultre
Patek Philippe
Ulysse Nardin
Vacheron Constantin

NOTE- Tbe below list is in no way exhaustive. 

Luxury-

Rolex
Omega
Panerai
Grand Seiko
Piaget
Cartier
Chopard


Upper Premium- 

Maurice Lacorix
Fredrique Constant
etc.


Anyways, one gets the jist of things ! Feel free to chime in or add what you please.


----------



## TK-421

i would add Zenith to the top list. i would add Longines, Baume et Mercier, and Union Glashuette to the upper premium list.



malioil said:


> I certainly do agree that the reason such threads can turn into such intense arguments is due to the fact that there are no set criteria to define what a 'high-end' watch is. It is a colloquial term (not even the horological industry defines watches as 'high-end'- I'm pretty sure, like all other industries, they have about a thousand sub genres of what a watch is/fits into to establish their target market). As 'high-end' is extremely general and subjective, it does lead to some heated, yet enjoyable debating. Gentlemen, it is in threads like these that we truly show our passion for watches.
> 
> Now, here is a list I have personally drawn up to be high-end. I have not set out scientific criteria for my list, but it is what, from my experience I feel are watches that are above the usual luxury brand standard in movement, finishing/building quality, name, movement and ultimately, price point. In regards to the price point, I am only considering the prices of the watches themselves, not when studded by 20 carats of diamonds.
> 
> Here goes !
> 
> Prestige/Ultra-Luxury/High-End/Exclusive
> 
> A. Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Pigeut
> Breguet
> Blancpain (some would say they are luxury watches, but they hold a status above say, Omega and other fine luxury watchmakers)
> Chronoswiss (in the lowest end of the high end spectrum, but they nonetheless make some very fine watches)
> Girard-Perregaux
> Glashutte Original
> Harry Winston
> Hubolt (this is very debatable but their watches certainly don't fit into luxury price/image wise, and they do ultimately make sought after higher-end watches)
> International Watch Company (upper end of their offerings)
> Jaquet Droz
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Patek Philippe
> Ulysse Nardin
> Vacheron Constantin
> 
> NOTE- Tbe below list is in no way exhaustive.
> 
> Luxury-
> 
> Rolex
> Omega
> Panerai
> Grand Seiko
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Chopard
> 
> Upper Premium-
> 
> Maurice Lacorix
> Fredrique Constant
> etc.
> 
> Anyways, one gets the jist of things ! Feel free to chime in or add what you please.


----------



## Monocrom

I've seen how TAG Heuer watches are made, and they are far from the fashion brand that many assume the brand to be.

To me, quality is upper-most in terms of high-end.

I wouldn't put Omega in the same league as Rolex. Close, but not the same. TAG Heuer, quality-wise, is a direct rival to Omega.


----------



## aznseank

I have a very low opinion of both TAG and Omega but... omega does have the co-axial. TAG is pure ETA. Omega is the lesser of the two evil.


----------



## Monocrom

aznseank said:


> I have a very low opinion of both TAG and Omega but... omega does have the co-axial. TAG is pure ETA. Omega is the lesser of the two evil.


A perfect example of the perception of TAG Heuer vs. the reality. TAG is not pure ETA. Their Calibre 1887 isn't a slightly modified ETA movement. It's a greatly improved movement that once belonged to Seiko until TAG bought the rights to it. (And TAG was the one who greatly improved it.) Also, some Aquaracers contain a Sellita SW200 movement instead of an ETA 2824-2. The ones that have a "-01" directly after the #, signify that there's a Sellita inside instead of an ETA.

Also, with watches, there's no reason to go with a "lesser of two evils." Plenty of other brands to pick from, in a variety of categories if TAG and Omega don't excite a buyer.


----------



## Dancing Fire

Tag belongs in the high end forum? :-s


----------



## Monocrom

Dancing Fire said:


> Tag belongs in the high end forum? :-s


If you'd like, feel free to detail the reasons why you believe it does not.


----------



## mleok

Monocrom said:


> If you'd like, feel free to detail the reasons why you believe it does not.


By your own assessment, Tag is comparable to Omega, but Omega is below Rolex. Since Rolex is not typically considered to be a high-end watch, it stands to reason that neither does Tag.


----------



## TK-421

tag does not belong. maybe this watch does.


----------



## ymfd181

I might want to seperate high end and non high end through a simple criteria..

Watches that people buy because of the brand/marketing technique or watches that pple buy because of their watch making ability. The first sort would fit things like Rolex and Panerai while the second would be like a JLC (which to me sucks bad in the marketing department) or a PP (which does great on both)


----------



## Monocrom

mleok said:


> By your own assessment, Tag is comparable to Omega, but Omega is below Rolex. Since Rolex is not typically considered to be a high-end watch, it stands to reason that neither does Tag.


Rolex not high-end? That's a bit of a stretch. Don't misunderstand, I think their quality has certainly slipped in recent years. Still, I'd buy a vintage Rolex. It would be tough though to convince many that Rolex isn't high-end. Not as high-end as a Patek-Philippe obviously. But still up there.


----------



## Monocrom

TK-421 said:


> tag does not belong . . .


Guys, I'm not being sarcastic. I would honestly like to see specific reasons why some consider TAG Heuer not to part of the group.

I suspect the main reason is due to the ingrained belief that TAG is simply a fashion brand. (Not true. I've seen how TAG Heuer watches are made. Far from simply a fashion brand.) And that it's currently trendy to look down upon the brand.


----------



## mleok

Monocrom said:


> Rolex not high-end? That's a bit of a stretch. Don't misunderstand, I think their quality has certainly slipped in recent years. Still, I'd buy a vintage Rolex. It would be tough though to convince many that Rolex isn't high-end. Not as high-end as a Patek-Philippe obviously. But still up there.


This is a good article to read:

Chronocentric

You keep saying that you've seen how Tags are built, but you might want to look up videos on how Pateks or Langes are manufactured, there is dramatically more hand finishing in the process. Have a look at the manufacturing process for Glashutte Original, for example,






There is also an issue of exclusivity, and in practice, any watch brand (such as Tag or Rolex) that can be purchased in practically any large mall does not satisfy that criterion.

Search this subforum for discussions about whether Rolex is considered high-end, and you'll find that most people agree that while Rolex is a horologically significant luxury watch brand, it is generally not considered to be high-end.

One reason is that it doesn't not offer watches with high-end complications such as the tourbillon, minute repeater, or perpetual calendar. While the inhouse Rolex movements are COSC certified, they do not involve significant hand-finishing and embellishing of the movements, and they do not qualify for the Geneve seal,

The Geneva Seal explained - The Hour Lounge - the Vacheron Constantin Forum

I should probably add that what the man on the street would consider to be a high-end watch is quite different from what a watch aficionado considers high-end, and that probably lies at the heart of this discussion.


----------



## mleok

Monocrom, I assume this is the video you're referring to about how Tags are made?






This is a cool video of how a Blancpain tourbillon is made:


----------



## iim7v7im7

*The circle game...*

This forum is not about who is high-end and who is not. It is a catch all for high-end brands without individual forums to discuss them in. So on WUS, German Brand Forum covers a myriad of German brands (e.g. A. Lange & Sohne and Glashutte Original are represented there). Other brands have individual forums of their own (e.g. Grand Seiko, Hublot, IWC, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Rolex and Zenith for example). But there are many high-end brands that have no representation on WUS other than in the Public Forum such as:

Audemars Piguet
Blancpain
Breguet
Chopard
FP Journe
Girard-Perregaux
Jaquet Droz
H. Moser & Cie.
Parmigiani
Patek Philippe
Piaget
Ulysse Nardin
Vacheron Constantin

Come to mind (there are many others). This is why a catch all forum was created. The endless debate of who is high-end and who is not will continue in cyber-circles as proven in this thread.

My $ .02,

Bob


----------



## iim7v7im7

Call me a masochist but I will take a stab at it&#8230;

High-end watch brands manufacture in low to medium volumes (e.g. usually well below <100,000 per/year) and are available through a limited number of Ads or Boutiques They source their movements either in-house or from exclusive third party manufacturers and there product line-ups tend to have a higher ratio of precious metal watches.

*TAG Heuer:*
*Manufacturing Volume:* High (100,000s watches per/year) and widely available
*Movements:* Mix of Commodity and In-House
*Case Metal:* Mostly Non-Precious

TAG Heuer is similar to Breitling, Omega and Rolex albeit I would say the ratio of commodity to in-house is a bit shifted toward commodity. Rolex differs in that it is all in-house and has a higher mixture of precious metal watches in its line-up.

This is why I do not consider TAG Heuer a high-end brand. I do not look down upon it. They make some very nice watches. I view Breitling, Omega, Rolex and TAG Heuer all as high volume, luxury watch producers. It is a very broad category with a range of quality.



Bob



Monocrom said:


> Guys, I'm not being sarcastic. I would honestly like to see specific reasons why some consider TAG Heuer not to part of the group
> I suspect the main reason is due to the ingrained belief that TAG is simply a fashion brand. (Not true. I've seen how TAG Heuer watches are made. Far from simply a fashion brand.) And that it's currently trendy to look down upon the brand.


----------



## mleok

Let me reproduce a helpful table from chronocentric.

Chronocentric


*High-End Luxury*
There are always superb options when money is no object.
 Expect To Get: A particularly refined watch recognized only by people "in the know." Very exclusive in design and craftsmanship, produced in small numbers, available through only very specialized dealers. In short, these are the Rolls Royce class of timepieces. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantinstarting at $5,000 for Steel models
starting at $10,000 for Gold on a leather strap
starting at $20,000 for Gold on a Gold bracelet
with the sky as the limit. Some watches can exceed $2,000,000. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Either highly distinctive or ultra-conservative.Very to extremely limited production. Partially to completely handcrafted.Hand finished mechanical movements either developed and produced by the same company ('in-house') or bought from specialty movement houses and highly customized. Additional mechanical complications--from obvious ones like moon phases and power reserve indicators to very subtle ones like correctly handling all the obscure conditions of the Gregorian calendar.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold mainly through very exclusive and high-end jewelry dealers. While some modest discounts are customary, larger discounts are rare. Some of these are available through gray market dealers. But on such exclusive and expensive products, it is not usually a good idea to buy through unauthorized sources.Because of high new watch prices and limited production, used models are in notable demand and still command quite decent prices.Always collectible, always valuable.*Summary:* If you have the kind of money necessary to play in this field, then you likely do understand what the true merits and values of world-class luxury items have to offer. These are the products that impress those in the know, not the average Joe on the street. Exclusivity and extremes of refinement and jewelry value are king here. 


*Luxury*
The largest, most widely known class of luxury timepieces

 Expect To Get: An elegant, valuable, stylish and prestigious watch that will serve you well for a long time. Of quality and durability that the watch can be passed down to your children. If maintained in good condition, can be resold whether it is 6 months or 30 years old. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Breitling, Cartier, Ebel, Omega, Rolex$1,000-$4,000 for Steel models
$2,500-$8,000 for Gold on a leather strap
$5,000-$20,000 for Gold on a Gold bracelet
Only modest discounts available through most brand-authorized dealers. Moderate discounts available from unauthorized "gray market" dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Trend-setting styles that range from traditional to highly original. Each brand usually has at least one or two very distinctive styles.Cases and bracelets mass-produced, but with the superlative fit and finish of fine jewelry. Surgical grade steel. Solid gold of 18 karat or sometimes 14 karat. Highly scratch-resistant sapphire crystals.High-end movements mass produced by the brand, or by a different company and then often customized by the brand. Dominantly very high-grade quartz and chronometer-grade mechanical. Digital quartz not seen at this level except for a few very specialized aerospace watches.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold officially mainly through dealers of higher-end jewelry. Though several forms of unauthorized resellers exist. Discounts through authorized dealers are restricted by the manufacturers to avoid cheapening the brand image.Superb market. Watches in this class are well sought after, but their high initial pricing encourages many buyers to seek used ones to better suit their budgets.Superb market. Watches in this class can last for many decades and are readily available through many reputable used watch dealers.*Summary:* This is the main tier of true luxury watches. Overall, these can be a good value because manufacturers at this level are not skimping to offer 'luxury' products at more moderate prices--yet they mostly do not go to outrageous excess in details without regard to cost of the highest-end brands. Better durability and modest depreciation rates make the long-term cost of ownership of these watches quite reasonable. Used watches in this tier can be an outstanding value. 


*Pseudo Luxury Watches*
When you want a better luxury watch, but don't want to spend so much
 Expect To Get: An elegant and stylish watch that will serve you well for a moderate number of years. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, Tag Heuer$500-$2,000 for Steel models
$750-$4,000 for Gold models
Moderate to heavy discounts available through various dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:More trend following than trend leading.Mass-produced with adequate fit and finish. Steel. Filled or solid gold. Crystals may be mineral glass, acrylic or sometimes synthetic sapphire.High-volume mass-production. Mostly analog quartz and non-chronometer grade mechanical. These brands tend to focus mostly on luxury-style exteriors equipped with very common, unexceptional watch movements.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold as the 'better' brands in department stores and mall-type watch store chains. Sometimes sold as the 'low-end' brands in fine jewelry stores.Limited market. Despite some of these being priced new close to brands in the true Luxury category, the heavier discounting when new, trendy styles that become dated and poorer long term durability depreciate their value rapidly.Most of these brands cannot claim any meaningful vintage heritage, even though some are operating under names of bought out companies that were well reputed in earlier decades.*Summary:* This is the transition tier--these watches are the high-end brands of the mass market stores, but the low-end brands at the finer jewelry stores. Overall, these can be the weaker value in luxury watches. They still have hefty prices, yet lack many of the better durability and long-term value benefits of the only slightly more expensive watches. Used watches from brands in the next tier up bought from reliable used watch dealers are usually a much better value. 


*Basic Luxury Watches*
When you want something finer than average
 Expect To Get: An elegant and stylish watch that will serve you well for a number of years. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Epos, Fortis, Movado, Orisunder $1,000 for Steel models
under $2,000 for Gold models
Moderate to heavy discounts available through various dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Mostly classic or trend following, though some brands in this class depend on style uniqueness as their real value.Mass-produced with adequate fit and finish. Steel. Plated or filled golds. Crystals are usually the scratchable but inexpensively replaced mineral glass or acrylic type.High-volume mass-production. Mostly analog quartz and non-chronometer grade mechanical. However some offer very unique complications at modest prices relative to most of the luxury watch market.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold in department stores and mall-type watch store chains, though some of these brands are unique enough that they only appear in watch specialty stores. Sometimes sold as the 'low-end' brands in fine jewelry stores.Limited market, main point of resale for this class of watches is pawn shops.Once these watches reach a 'vintage' age, their style, condition and values are seldom appealing enough to create any significant demand for them--except for those in virtually unused condition.*Summary:* This is the first tier of 'luxury' caliber watches. While there is a broad range, many brands at this level are excellent values as they are not trying to be more than they are. Some concentrate more on 'fashion' watches, others focus on affordable yet horologically sound products. The more modest prices make these a less risky purchase--you haven't invested so much that long-term value is of such concern. 


----------



## Dancing Fire

Monocrom said:


> If you'd like, feel free to detail the reasons why you believe it does not.


IMO...for a watch to be consider high end.

the watch company must invest their $$$ into R&D and produce their own calibers, buying a Ford engine (ETA) installing it under the hood of a Ferrari does not make the car a Ferrari.


----------



## Dancing Fire

TK-421 said:


> tag does not belong. maybe this watch does.


this watch is not high end ...it is a jewelry piece.


----------



## mleok

Monocrom said:


> A perfect example of the perception of TAG Heuer vs. the reality. TAG is not pure ETA. Their Calibre 1887 isn't a slightly modified ETA movement. It's a greatly improved movement that once belonged to Seiko until TAG bought the rights to it. (And TAG was the one who greatly improved it.) Also, some Aquaracers contain a Sellita SW200 movement instead of an ETA 2824-2. The ones that have a "-01" directly after the #, signify that there's a Sellita inside instead of an ETA.


The Sellita SW200-1 is simply a clone of the ETA 2824-2, and its use reflects the fact that ETA is significantly reducing the availability of ebauches outside the Swatch group.

As for the Calibre 1887, read the following:

Tag Heuer New Caliber 1887 Watch Movement SNAFU

The general impression seems to be that the Calibre 1887 is essentially the Seiko 6S37, except for updated plates and bridges, which I would hardly call a greatly improved movement.


----------



## Dancing Fire

Monocrom said:


> Rolex not high-end? That's a bit of a stretch. Don't misunderstand, I think their quality has certainly slipped in recent years. Still, I'd buy a vintage Rolex. It would be tough though to convince many that Rolex isn't high-end. Not as high-end as a Patek-Philippe obviously. But still up there.


no,Rolex is not high end,and yes i do own a Rolex.


----------



## Monocrom

I appreciate the responses. Bear with me as I'm not the best at multi-quoting:

*~ mleok
*
I read through the article you linked to. I agree it was spot-on with regards to Rolex. However, it would still be difficult to convince even some watch lovers that Rolex isn't high-end. Even those who know that a simple Timex can keep time better and is going to be more durable.

Exclusivity doesn't always translate as "high-end." I collect high-end flashlights. Among my collection, the most exclusive model is a very non-high-end Dorcy black AAA model. Doesn't seem much when you look at it. But it's exclusive to such a degree that the average high-end flashlight collector has never handled or even seen one in person. Pics are rare, and some claim they are other, more common, versions of the same Dorcy light, simply photoshopped. Here's the thing . . . I own one. It's definitely real. As I said, so exclusive; some collectors actually debate if it even exists. Is it high-end? Is it Uber expensive? No, not one bit. But very exclusive. I understand what you're saying. But exclusivity doesn't always make a watch high-end.

Same thing with an in-house movement. Having one in a watch does not automatically translate into "high-end." When I bought my Orient black Mako, it came with a true in-house movement. Not a slightly tweaked ETA movement that under Swiss law could legally be labeled "in-house." And even though it was a very good watch, I'll be the first to say it wasn't remotely high-end. Still, it does feature a genuine in-house movement.

I have to be honest, those features you listed are not ones I'd consider high-end. And please let me explain why. Tourbillions are obsolete. Yes, at one point, it was an extremely useful complication. But that's not the case, today. Also, I've seen Invicta models that feature them. And I mean actual tourbillions. The watches themselves were ugly. But they did have that actual complication in them. With the invention of lume, minute repeaters also became mostly obsolete. But I can see how they would still be useful to those who suffer from very poor eye-sight. What sort of watch lover wouldn't enjoy turning the crown at least once a month. Plus, perpetual calenders tend to be a real pain to fix if issues develop down the road. As for COSC certification, the high-end Japanese models always do better than COSC.

Those are complications and features that are little more than novelties at best. Even the minute repeaters. I've seen specialty watches that directly speak the time for individuals who are nearly blind or very hard of hearing. And those watches don't cost a lot either.

To each his own. But I can't see a watch filled with novelty complications as a big factor in it being truly high-end. A great deal of high quality and a certain degree of attention to detail are the two biggest criteria I look at.

Thanks for posting the vids. The ones I saw were from an educational TV show that I happened to catch.

It's odd that chronocentric uses the term "Pseudo Luxury" as the category for a handful of brands. Yet, even their own summary doesn't bear out the "Fake Luxury" stamp they gave those brands.

I've mentioned this on two different threads already. Guess this is going to be #3. Sellita = sub-contractor that made ETA movements for ETA. Those movements were then put into watches. The SW200 is more of an identical twin with an extra jewel than simply a clone. Yes, there were early teething issues. But those were fixed. The difference between an ETA 2824 and the Sellita SW200? One jewel, and a different name. Otherwise, it's the same movement with the same quality. But everyone has heard of ETA. Sellita just lacks the name-recognition. If I put on a baseball cap and changed my name to Steve, I'd still be the same person.

*~ iim7v7im7
*
Thanks for going into detail. Your post was very helpful. I appreciate it.

*~ Dancing Fire*

If the movement is in-house, it should be able to do something more significant than what an ETA movement can do. Should allow the watch to incorporate more features. But not novelty features. If an in-house movement can't outperform a comparable ETA movement, or it's functionally no better than the inexpensive in-house movement in an Orient Mako, then what's the point? Orient makes their own in-house movement. I don't think anyone will claim the brand is high-end.

Also . . . Never accused you of not owning a Rolex.


----------



## TK-421

ebel? i would substitute IWC for Ebel.



mleok said:


> Let me reproduce a helpful table from chronocentric.
> 
> Chronocentric
> 
> 
> *High-End Luxury*
> There are always superb options when money is no object.
>  Expect To Get: A particularly refined watch recognized only by people "in the know." Very exclusive in design and craftsmanship, produced in small numbers, available through only very specialized dealers. In short, these are the Rolls Royce class of timepieces. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantinstarting at $5,000 for Steel models
> starting at $10,000 for Gold on a leather strap
> starting at $20,000 for Gold on a Gold bracelet
> with the sky as the limit. Some watches can exceed $2,000,000. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Either highly distinctive or ultra-conservative.Very to extremely limited production. Partially to completely handcrafted.Hand finished mechanical movements either developed and produced by the same company ('in-house') or bought from specialty movement houses and highly customized. Additional mechanical complications--from obvious ones like moon phases and power reserve indicators to very subtle ones like correctly handling all the obscure conditions of the Gregorian calendar.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold mainly through very exclusive and high-end jewelry dealers. While some modest discounts are customary, larger discounts are rare. Some of these are available through gray market dealers. But on such exclusive and expensive products, it is not usually a good idea to buy through unauthorized sources.Because of high new watch prices and limited production, used models are in notable demand and still command quite decent prices.Always collectible, always valuable.*Summary:* If you have the kind of money necessary to play in this field, then you likely do understand what the true merits and values of world-class luxury items have to offer. These are the products that impress those in the know, not the average Joe on the street. Exclusivity and extremes of refinement and jewelry value are king here. 
> 
> 
> *Luxury*
> The largest, most widely known class of luxury timepieces
> 
>  Expect To Get: An elegant, valuable, stylish and prestigious watch that will serve you well for a long time. Of quality and durability that the watch can be passed down to your children. If maintained in good condition, can be resold whether it is 6 months or 30 years old. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Breitling, Cartier, Ebel, Omega, Rolex$1,000-$4,000 for Steel models
> $2,500-$8,000 for Gold on a leather strap
> $5,000-$20,000 for Gold on a Gold bracelet
> Only modest discounts available through most brand-authorized dealers. Moderate discounts available from unauthorized "gray market" dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Trend-setting styles that range from traditional to highly original. Each brand usually has at least one or two very distinctive styles.Cases and bracelets mass-produced, but with the superlative fit and finish of fine jewelry. Surgical grade steel. Solid gold of 18 karat or sometimes 14 karat. Highly scratch-resistant sapphire crystals.High-end movements mass produced by the brand, or by a different company and then often customized by the brand. Dominantly very high-grade quartz and chronometer-grade mechanical. Digital quartz not seen at this level except for a few very specialized aerospace watches.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold officially mainly through dealers of higher-end jewelry. Though several forms of unauthorized resellers exist. Discounts through authorized dealers are restricted by the manufacturers to avoid cheapening the brand image.Superb market. Watches in this class are well sought after, but their high initial pricing encourages many buyers to seek used ones to better suit their budgets.Superb market. Watches in this class can last for many decades and are readily available through many reputable used watch dealers.*Summary:* This is the main tier of true luxury watches. Overall, these can be a good value because manufacturers at this level are not skimping to offer 'luxury' products at more moderate prices--yet they mostly do not go to outrageous excess in details without regard to cost of the highest-end brands. Better durability and modest depreciation rates make the long-term cost of ownership of these watches quite reasonable. Used watches in this tier can be an outstanding value. 
> 
> 
> *Pseudo Luxury Watches*
> When you want a better luxury watch, but don't want to spend so much
>  Expect To Get: An elegant and stylish watch that will serve you well for a moderate number of years. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, Tag Heuer$500-$2,000 for Steel models
> $750-$4,000 for Gold models
> Moderate to heavy discounts available through various dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:More trend following than trend leading.Mass-produced with adequate fit and finish. Steel. Filled or solid gold. Crystals may be mineral glass, acrylic or sometimes synthetic sapphire.High-volume mass-production. Mostly analog quartz and non-chronometer grade mechanical. These brands tend to focus mostly on luxury-style exteriors equipped with very common, unexceptional watch movements.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold as the 'better' brands in department stores and mall-type watch store chains. Sometimes sold as the 'low-end' brands in fine jewelry stores.Limited market. Despite some of these being priced new close to brands in the true Luxury category, the heavier discounting when new, trendy styles that become dated and poorer long term durability depreciate their value rapidly.Most of these brands cannot claim any meaningful vintage heritage, even though some are operating under names of bought out companies that were well reputed in earlier decades.*Summary:* This is the transition tier--these watches are the high-end brands of the mass market stores, but the low-end brands at the finer jewelry stores. Overall, these can be the weaker value in luxury watches. They still have hefty prices, yet lack many of the better durability and long-term value benefits of the only slightly more expensive watches. Used watches from brands in the next tier up bought from reliable used watch dealers are usually a much better value. 
> 
> 
> *Basic Luxury Watches*
> When you want something finer than average
>  Expect To Get: An elegant and stylish watch that will serve you well for a number of years. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Epos, Fortis, Movado, Orisunder $1,000 for Steel models
> under $2,000 for Gold models
> Moderate to heavy discounts available through various dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Mostly classic or trend following, though some brands in this class depend on style uniqueness as their real value.Mass-produced with adequate fit and finish. Steel. Plated or filled golds. Crystals are usually the scratchable but inexpensively replaced mineral glass or acrylic type.High-volume mass-production. Mostly analog quartz and non-chronometer grade mechanical. However some offer very unique complications at modest prices relative to most of the luxury watch market.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold in department stores and mall-type watch store chains, though some of these brands are unique enough that they only appear in watch specialty stores. Sometimes sold as the 'low-end' brands in fine jewelry stores.Limited market, main point of resale for this class of watches is pawn shops.Once these watches reach a 'vintage' age, their style, condition and values are seldom appealing enough to create any significant demand for them--except for those in virtually unused condition.*Summary:* This is the first tier of 'luxury' caliber watches. While there is a broad range, many brands at this level are excellent values as they are not trying to be more than they are. Some concentrate more on 'fashion' watches, others focus on affordable yet horologically sound products. The more modest prices make these a less risky purchase--you haven't invested so much that long-term value is of such concern. 


----------



## Dancing Fire

monocrom...let me tell you a funny story.

last week when i was having lunch with a friend of mine he was showing off his new $2500 TAG watch,he said ...the next time when you are in the market for a new watch please give me a call and i'll show you what to look for in a high end watch. he look at my watch for 5 seconds and then go...:roll: btw; i was sporting a RG Lange 1 MP.


----------



## mleok

TK-421 said:


> ebel? i would substitute IWC for Ebel.


Sure, I think the article was just listing examples of watches at that level, but I understand that Ebel has lost some of its luster.


----------



## TK-421

what did he say? did he know what it was?



Dancing Fire said:


> monocrom...let me tell you a funny story.
> 
> last week when i was having lunch with a friend of mine he was showing off his new $2500 TAG watch,he said ...the next time when you are in the market for a new watch please give me a call and i'll show you what to look for in a high end watch. he look at my watch for 5 seconds and then go...:roll: btw; i was sporting a RG Lange 1 MP.


----------



## Dancing Fire

TK-421 said:


> what did he say? did he know what it was?


no, he probably thought it was a $300 watch. the next time i'll impress him by wearing my day/date. ...LOL


----------



## Monocrom

Dancing Fire said:


> monocrom...let me tell you a funny story.
> 
> last week when i was having lunch with a friend of mine he was showing off his new $2500 TAG watch,he said ...the next time when you are in the market for a new watch please give me a call and i'll show you what to look for in a high end watch. he look at my watch for 5 seconds and then go...:roll: btw; i was sporting a RG Lange 1 MP.


But you forgot to mention the most important detail . . . Did he look fashionable with it on his wrist? ;-)

In all seriousness though, I hope you pulled him aside and gave him some helpful info. about the very upper high-end brands out there.


----------



## jole777

Dancing Fire said:


> monocrom...let me tell you a funny story.
> 
> last week when i was having lunch with a friend of mine he was showing off his new $2500 TAG watch,he said ...the next time when you are in the market for a new watch please give me a call and i'll show you what to look for in a high end watch. he look at my watch for 5 seconds and then go...:roll: btw; i was sporting a RG Lange 1 MP.


I like how you didn't spoil his fun. He is probably very proud of his Tag and it's a good thing he was clueless about ALS.


----------



## Watchbreath

So you wouldn't consider Thomas Presher high end?


Dancing Fire said:


> IMO...for a watch to be consider high end.
> 
> the watch company must invest their $$$ into R&D and produce their own calibers, buying a Ford engine (ETA) installing it under the hood of a Ferrari does not make the car a Ferrari.


----------



## TK-421

i agree that rolex is not high end. but ford does make the ford gt. not a bad car.



Dancing Fire said:


> no,Rolex is not high end,and yes i do own a Rolex.


----------



## WISDean

This is a great thread. I'm in agreement with the Chronocentric Table 100%, except it needs one more category: Watches that meet all the criteria of expensive, excellent design and finish, public reknown, but fail in the movement or complication area - Cartier is a perfect example. Perhaps a category called "More fashionable Luxury"


----------



## Watchbreath

An what is your opinion of the Cartier - Tortue XL Tourbillon Chonographe Monopoussoir and the Rotonde 
de Cartier Astrotourbillon?


WISDean said:


> This is a great thread. I'm in agreement with the Chronocentric Table 100%, except it needs one more category: Watches that meet all the criteria of expensive, excellent design and finish, public reknown, but fail in the movement or complication area - Cartier is a perfect example. Perhaps a category called "More fashionable Luxury"


----------



## swo

Both of those pieces are sick!!! Would be impossible by any stretch of the imagination to not classify these as high-end.



Watchbreath said:


> An what is your opinion of the Cartier - Tortue XL Tourbillon Chonographe Monopoussoir and the Rotonde
> de Cartier Astrotourbillon?


----------



## aznseank

are you trying to imply that cartier is a high end because of they offer few pieces with sophisticated complications? By your logic, Omega should also qualify as high end because they also have a a torubillon; and not to mentioned plethora of other brands.


----------



## Watchbreath

Sick or slick?


swo said:


> Both of those pieces are sick!!! Would be impossible by any stretch of the imagination to not classify these as high-end.


----------



## WISDean

Watchbreath said:


> An what is your opinion of the Cartier - Tortue XL Tourbillon Chonographe Monopoussoir and the Rotonde
> de Cartier Astrotourbillon?


Sure - there are always the exceptions. I'm referring to the daily bread/butter, like the Tank, Ballon, Raodster, etc. that use modified off-the-shelf movements. You knew that already.


----------



## Watchbreath

:think: Strange, the word "exceptions" always comes up later.


WISDean said:


> Sure - there are always the exceptions. I'm referring to the daily bread/butter, like the Tank, Ballon, Raodster, etc. that use modified off-the-shelf movements. You knew that already.


----------



## swo

Watchbreath said:


> Sick or slick?


sick in a good way! Like phat or bad!


----------



## swo

aznseank said:


> are you trying to imply that cartier is a high end because of they offer few pieces with sophisticated complications? By your logic, Omega should also qualify as high end because they also have a a torubillon; and not to mentioned plethora of other brands.


Yes, I believe that both Cartier and Omega are capable of manufacturing extremely high grade pieces. Cartier with JLC, GP movements? Not as good as JLC, GP? Cartier's fine/complicated watchmaking line, which is far more than a few pieces, is wayyyyyy high-end (whatever than means) in my mind.

The new Omega in-house movement is gorgeous and the lady-matic is stunning in person.

By the way, Cartier is a bit too fashion-y for my taste, but they do make beautiful pieces and the new "Calibre" line looks fantastic.


----------



## WISDean

Watchbreath said:


> :think: Strange, the word "exceptions" always comes up later.


Not strange at all. When you discuss something, you discuss the main points. Exceptions always come later because they are, as stated, exceptions to the general rule. When you go to a lecture, does it begin with a discourse on the exceptions?

Anyways, since you're going to entertain yourself with semantics, then consider the Seiko Credo Juri or whatever the model is, listed at over $500,000 - it's on Wikipedia, I didn't go far to find it. So is the Seiko a high-end brand? Well?

The emoticon is cute - very passive-aggressive.


----------



## Tyrtle

...and this circular debate is why it is called the "_High-end WATCHES_" forum instead of the "_High-end BRANDS_" forum.


----------



## swo

Tyrtle said:


> ...and this circular debate is why it is called the "_High-end WATCHES_" forum instead of the "_High-end BRANDS_" forum.


This point is exactly right on!


----------



## philskywalker

Beyond_Time said:


> Except entry level Pilot and Portifino models. All other IWC watches are considered high-end.
> For Omega, all models with the new Calibre 8XXX are high-end. Tag Heure is not a high-end brand.
> however I think they have one model with Zenith Chronograph movement. That's definitely high-end.
> and many others JLC Rolex Piaget ......


mmmmmm I think Tag would qualify as high end as they make some expensive watches and have dedicated a lot of money to advertising there brand!!


----------



## Watchbreath

Marketing doesn't make a high end. TAG would appear high end to someone who collects Invictas and the like.


philskywalker said:


> mmmmmm I think Tag would qualify as high end as they make some expensive watches and have dedicated a lot of money to advertising there brand!!


----------



## Monocrom

Watchbreath said:


> Marketing doesn't make a high end. TAG would appear high end to someone who collects Invictas and the like.


A few of the other brands mentioned in this thread don't offer anything substantial over TAG Heuer. Plenty of marketing going on with them as well. Only difference is, they're a bit better at it than TAG Heuer.


----------



## TK-421

well said. i also respect rolex as a watch, but as a brand it would be perceived as the best by invicta collectors. i see TAG as the Rolex of Gen X.



Watchbreath said:


> Marketing doesn't make a high end. TAG would appear high end to someone who collects Invictas and the like.


----------



## LHL

Marketing doesn't make a high end, but it advertises for one. Marketing and advertising is what can make or break any brand watch company. Also, If you look closely you will notice that depending on the brand and how they plan on marketing a specific model they can go from high end to luxury to fashion and so on. It's hard to really say one brand belongs in the high end to another. Many would agree and say that Hublot is a high end watch company, but at one point in the late 1990s to early 2000s they almost fell apart and shut down. Luckily for them, they made some changes and then came out with the Big Bang watches, but most importantly they marketed those watches as high end and advertised like never before. Look at them now, they are considered one of the top watch manufacturers in the world. Tag Heuer does make some high end watches as well as some luxury ones. Tag Heuer has been a pioneer in the watch making industry for a very long time with their chronographs, modifications of movements and concepts. In some cases they lead and are ahead of the competition. One of the things I feel can make a watch be considered high end or even luxury besides its price is its rarity. If a watch is made in small quantities by a reputable company and made well that not to many people will be able to obtain, I feel that can be considered a high end watch too. Rare watches tend to hold their value better. As for the movements in the watches, many tend to get caught up if it's an in house movement or not. Even if it's an in house movement, how do we really know that it's any better than a modified 7750. We don't. We assume that most in house movements are special and made better than anything out there, but we really won't know until we see how well they work and for how long. We all have our own opinions, but to me the most high end watch and the best watch is the one that we each enjoy to wear and that is made well and stays functional for a very long time. Everyone should enjoy and be proud of their time pieces.


----------



## mleok

Hublot is a high end watch? I always thought of it as a pretentious, overrated, and overpriced fashion watch.


----------



## Widjaja77

So is Richard Mille or Franck Muller a high end watch? Just wondering ......


----------



## Roller.959

LHL said:


> Marketing doesn't make a high end, but it advertises for one. Marketing and advertising is what can make or break any brand watch company. Also, If you look closely you will notice that depending on the brand and how they plan on marketing a specific model they can go from high end to luxury to fashion and so on. It's hard to really say one brand belongs in the high end to another. Many would agree and say that Hublot is a high end watch company, but at one point in the late 1990s to early 2000s they almost fell apart and shut down. Luckily for them, they made some changes and then came out with the Big Bang watches, but most importantly they marketed those watches as high end and advertised like never before. Look at them now, they are considered one of the top watch manufacturers in the world. Tag Heuer does make some high end watches as well as some luxury ones. Tag Heuer has been a pioneer in the watch making industry for a very long time with their chronographs, modifications of movements and concepts. In some cases they lead and are ahead of the competition. One of the things I feel can make a watch be considered high end or even luxury besides its price is its rarity. If a watch is made in small quantities by a reputable company and made well that not to many people will be able to obtain, I feel that can be considered a high end watch too. Rare watches tend to hold their value better. As for the movements in the watches, many tend to get caught up if it's an in house movement or not. Even if it's an in house movement, how do we really know that it's any better than a modified 7750. We don't. *We assume that most in house movements are special and made better than anything out there, but we really won't know until we see how well they work and for how long. We all have our own opinions, but to me the most high end watch and the best watch is the one that we each enjoy to wear and that is made well and stays functional for a very long time. Everyone should enjoy and be proud of their time pieces. *


So the High End Forum should get flooded with Invicta owners because they are proud of their time piece?
Hamilton owners should be here because they purchased a 7750?
SS Camaro's with the venerable LS3, about as durable and long lasting a V8 one can get, is a high end car?

I disagree with your math.

Additionally, what is limited? 9999? 1830? Numbers I have seen. I have a 2009 Pontiac with less units made...is that High-End?

I do agree with you that there are watch companies that can span the spectrum...but where their efforts lie within that spectrum may matter.

Finally, I continue to note that this is a High End Watch forum...not a High End Watch Brand forum.


----------



## Dancing Fire

LHL said:


> Marketing doesn't make a high end, but it advertises for one. Marketing and advertising is what can make or break any brand watch company. Also, If you look closely you will notice that depending on the brand and how they plan on marketing a specific model they can go from high end to luxury to fashion and so on. It's hard to really say one brand belongs in the high end to another. Many would agree and say that Hublot is a high end watch company, but at one point in the late 1990s to early 2000s they almost fell apart and shut down. Luckily for them, they made some changes and then came out with the Big Bang watches, but most importantly they marketed those watches as high end and advertised like never before. Look at them now, they are considered one of the top watch manufacturers in the world. Tag Heuer does make some high end watches as well as some luxury ones. Tag Heuer has been a pioneer in the watch making industry for a very long time with their chronographs, modifications of movements and concepts. In some cases they lead and are ahead of the competition. One of the things I feel can make a watch be considered high end or even luxury besides its price is its rarity. If a watch is made in small quantities by a reputable company and made well that not to many people will be able to obtain, I feel that can be considered a high end watch too. Rare watches tend to hold their value better. As for the movements in the watches, many tend to get caught up if it's an in house movement or not. Even if it's an in house movement, how do we really know that it's any better than a modified 7750. We don't. We assume that most in house movements are special and made better than anything out there, but we really won't know until we see how well they work and for how long. We all have our own opinions, but to me the most high end watch and the best watch is the one that we each enjoy to wear and that is made well and stays functional for a very long time. Everyone should enjoy and be proud of their time pieces.


Hublots and Tags are high end? o| :-d


----------



## LHL

Roller.959,

First of all, Invicta was never mentioned. As a matter of fact I don't consider Invicta a high end nor a luxury watch brand. I see them more as a fashion watch company even though they do have a line that is made fairly well. Hamilton is another brand that wasn't mentioned.

I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to say. Everyone has their own opinion as to what is high end to them and how companies market their products can also impact ones views. 

Now I'm curious, what is wrong with a 7750 or better yet a 7750 that has been modified by a big reputable company? The 7750 at one point was one of the best movements made and that is why they still use it today but many companies modify it to their specifications. 

As for comparing cars to watches, I might as well compare apples to oranges or anything else for that matter. Once again, it's up to each individual's perspective of what is high end to them. 

No one is doing math here just simple explanations so there is nothing to get wrong or disagree in. 

Rare and limited edition watches tend to be some of the company's better watches and also tend to hold their value better, which inturn can many times be considered high end. As I mentioned before, this is to individual opinions. 

If am right this forum is labeled (Which Watch Brands Belong in the High-End Forum? Which Ones Do Not?). I don't know about anyone else, but when I read it, I understand it as watch brands not specific watch models. If that's the case then a new forum needs to be created stating "Which watch models are considered high end, which ones are not?"


----------



## LHL

Dancing Fire said:


> Hublots and Tags are high end? o| :-d


Hublot and Tag Heuer can be and are considered by many as a high end brandsdue to the fact that they have created some fine master pieces, but once againeveryone has their own opinion as to what is high end.


----------



## iim7v7im7

Reade this...

https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/high-end-watches-forum-why-321568.html



LHL said:


> Roller.959,
> 
> First of all, Invicta was never mentioned. As a matter of fact I don't consider Invicta a high end nor a luxury watch brand. I see them more as a fashion watch company even though they do have a line that is made fairly well. Hamilton is another brand that wasn't mentioned.
> 
> I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to say. Everyone has their own opinion as to what is high end to them and how companies market their products can also impact ones views.
> 
> Now I'm curious, what is wrong with a 7750 or better yet a 7750 that has been modified by a big reputable company? The 7750 at one point was one of the best movements made and that is why they still use it today but many companies modify it to their specifications.
> 
> As for comparing cars to watches, I might as well compare apples to oranges or anything else for that matter. Once again, it's up to each individual's perspective of what is high end to them.
> 
> No one is doing math here just simple explanations so there is nothing to get wrong or disagree in.
> 
> Rare and limited edition watches tend to be some of the company's better watches and also tend to hold their value better, which inturn can many times be considered high end. As I mentioned before, this is to individual opinions.
> 
> If am right this forum is labeled (Which Watch Brands Belong in the High-End Forum? Which Ones Do Not?). I don't know about anyone else, but when I read it, I understand it as watch brands not specific watch models. If that's the case then a new forum needs to be created stating "Which watch models are considered high end, which ones are not?"


----------



## Constantine Soulellis

Watchbreath said:


> :think: Strange, the word "exceptions" always comes up later.


LOL easy there, try not to get bent out of shape. We're talking about watches, not national defense.


----------



## Watchbreath

I sold TAG for 4.5 years and they are NOT high end, although they have a few at high end prices.


LHL said:


> Hublot and Tag Heuer can be and are considered by many as a high end brandsdue to the fact that they have created some fine master pieces, but once againeveryone has their own opinion as to what is high end.


----------



## Watchbreath

Talking about watches does get pretty heated around these parts, almost to the point of trench warfare.


Constantine Soulellis said:


> LOL easy there, try not to get bent out of shape. We're talking about watches, not national defense.


----------



## Tyrtle

iim7v7im7 said:


> Reade this...
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/high-end-watches-forum-why-321568.html


Wow. To quote a moderator:

"Although very few brands have been quoted by WatchUSeek admin, the list could easily be extended enormously. Certainly, Chopard & Cartier would feature, also Blancpain, JLC, Girard Perregaux, Glashütte Original, plus, plus, plus..... The idea is to let the forum regulars decide what is high end and what isn't. Someone posting an ordinary Type X brand watch with little finissage on a standard ETA or other generic movement may not find their post "moved to a more suitable forum" but can probably expect some slightly more than sarcastic comments from the general community.

Potential users should also be aware that some high end watches already have their own forum (e.g. Zenith, Omega, Rolex). "


So, Cartier and Omega watches were originally meant to be part of the forum. In fact, the line was drawn at watches with standard versions of movements with "little finissage."

That is a much lower bar than most participants in this thread have advocated.

Maybe we should respect each brand's best models, instead of focusing on its weakest models. For those criticizing brands like Cartier because of their lower end models, keep in mind that *no* watch brand is above reproach, including your favorites.


----------



## Watchbreath

Ohhh, I duhna no, I would say McGonigle and some others would be.


Tyrtle said:


> Wow. To quote a moderator:
> 
> "Although very few brands have been quoted by WatchUSeek admin, the list could easily be extended enormously. Certainly, Chopard & Cartier would feature, also Blancpain, JLC, Girard Perregaux, Glashütte Original, plus, plus, plus..... The idea is to let the forum regulars decide what is high end and what isn't. Someone posting an ordinary Type X brand watch with little finissage on a standard ETA or other generic movement may not find their post "moved to a more suitable forum" but can probably expect some slightly more than sarcastic comments from the general community.
> 
> Potential users should also be aware that some high end watches already have their own forum (e.g. Zenith, Omega, Rolex). "
> 
> 
> So, Cartier and Omega watches were originally meant to be part of the forum. In fact, the line was drawn at watches with standard versions of movements with "little finissage."
> 
> That is a much lower bar than most participants in this thread have advocated.
> 
> Maybe we should respect each brand's best models, instead of focusing on its weakest models. For those criticizing brands like Cartier because of their lower end models, keep in mind that *no* watch brand is above reproach, including your favorites.


----------



## Dancing Fire

LHL said:


> Hublot and Tag Heuer can be and are considered by many as a high end brandsdue to the fact that they have created some fine master pieces, but once againeveryone has their own opinion as to what is high end.


high priced does not = high end.


----------



## LHL

Dancing Fire said:


> high priced does not = high end.


Price was never mentioned!


----------



## iim7v7im7

*I think that you may be confused...*

Hi,

In the link to the header thread of this forum, Ernie Romers basically states that the forum is a bucket all for brands without their own forums and cites some well known high-end watch ateliers. Hartmut Richter, the Zenith forum modrator chimed in with a list of example brands and went on to state:_
"The idea is to let the forum regulars decide what is high end and what isn't. Someone posting an ordinary Type X brand watch with little finissage on a standard ETA or other generic movement may not find their post "moved to a more suitable forum" but can probably expect some slightly more than sarcastic comments from the general community."

_​What is a more suitable forum? Likely the Public Forum or a specific brand's forum if there is one. So this forum is intended to be a place to get answers or discuss things that either might not be answered as well in the Public forum or that there is no specific brand forum to discuss it. So _Hublot, IWC, JLC, Omega, Panerai, Rolex _and _Zenith_ all have their own forums. _A. Lange & Sohne, Dornblueth & Sohn, Glashutte Original_ or _Nomos Glashutte_ might be better discussed in the German brand forums So those are better places to discuss those brands.

Brands like _Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Cartier, Chopard, FP Journe, Girard-Perregaux, H. Moser & Cie., Jaquet Droz, Parmigiani, Patek Philippe, Piaget, Ulysse Nardin_, and _Vacheron Constantin_ do not have forums and are probably better discussed here. You might get some discussion in the Public Forum, but matber some better discussion here. Are there other brands to be discussed? Of course there are (many).

For example, I posted this thread on Dec 14th on the Public Forum:

New Jaquet Droz Chronograph Arrived: A bit of an odd duck

I did not get a single response. I posted it here in the high-end forum on later date and did get some responses.

New Jaquet Droz Manual Wind Chronograph

This is why this forum was set up. I would suggest that answers to questions about brands that have there own forums are best answered there (e.g. TAG Heuer etc.). The forum as suggested by Hartmut is also self-regulating and will re-direct posters to forums where their questions are better addressed. We seem to make blood sport around here about defining what is a high-end brand and less about having discussions and answering questions sometimes.

I do not think so much that Hartmut was suggesting a threshold (that is what I meant by confused) but was citing an example of a watch that might be better suited to be posted somewhere else and not here.



Bob



Tyrtle said:


> Wow. To quote a moderator:
> 
> "Although very few brands have been quoted by WatchUSeek admin, the list could easily be extended enormously. Certainly, Chopard & Cartier would feature, also Blancpain, JLC, Girard Perregaux, Glashütte Original, plus, plus, plus..... The idea is to let the forum regulars decide what is high end and what isn't. Someone posting an ordinary Type X brand watch with little finissage on a standard ETA or other generic movement may not find their post "moved to a more suitable forum" but can probably expect some slightly more than sarcastic comments from the general community.
> 
> Potential users should also be aware that some high end watches already have their own forum (e.g. Zenith, Omega, Rolex). "
> 
> 
> So, Cartier and Omega watches were originally meant to be part of the forum. In fact, the line was drawn at watches with standard versions of movements with "little finissage."
> 
> That is a much lower bar than most participants in this thread have advocated.
> 
> Maybe we should respect each brand's best models, instead of focusing on its weakest models. For those criticizing brands like Cartier because of their lower end models, keep in mind that *no* watch brand is above reproach, including your favorites.


----------



## Tyrtle

*Re: I think that you may be confused...*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I do not think so much that Hartmut was suggesting a threshold (that is what I meant by confused) but was citing an example of a watch that might be better suited to be posted somewhere else and not here.
> 
> So this forum is intended to be a place to get answers or discuss things that either might not be answered as well in the Public forum or that there is no specific brand forum to discuss it. So _Hublot, IWC, JLC, Omega, Panerai, Rolex and Zenith all have their own forums. A. Lange & Sohne, Dornblueth & Sohn, Glashutte Original or Nomos Glashutte might be better discussed in the German brand forums So those are better places to discuss those brands. _
> 
> Bob


I don't want to get hung up on semantics. Whether you call it a "threshold", "guidelines", "characteristics", "suggestions", etc., the point remains. To repeat:

"_Someone posting an ordinary Type X brand watch with little finissage on a standard ETA or other generic movement may not find their post "moved to a more suitable forum" but can probably expect some slightly more than sarcastic comments from the general community."_

That was pretty specific regarding the characteristics of a _watch _that would make a _watch_ more or less suitable for discussion in the forum. Indeed, would a non-WIS even understand what terms likes "ETA", "finissage", and or "generic movement" mean?

Thus, my point: the discussion makes explicit that some watches people are trying to exclude from the forum do, in fact, belong here. More importantly, it makes clear that inclusion is to be judged on the properties of the _watch_ (i.e. its movement, finissage, etc.), not the _brand_. Hence, discussions of _watches_ such as specific models from Chronoswiss, van der Klaauw, and Cartier belong here.


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: I think that you may be confused...*

So I guess the question you are getting at is when should someone use the public forum vs. the high-end watches forum? I would usually start with the public forum and if no answer or dialogue happens move it over to here. So what is an example that you are thinking of? I agree that some brands have broad ranges of watches (some being high-end and others not). Let's see if we can test out your point and get somewhere?



Bob



Tyrtle said:


> I don't want to get hung up on semantics. Whether you call it a "threshold", "guidelines", "characteristics", "suggestions", etc., the point remains. To repeat:
> 
> "_Someone posting an ordinary Type X brand watch with little finissage on a standard ETA or other generic movement may not find their post "moved to a more suitable forum" but can probably expect some slightly more than sarcastic comments from the general community."_
> 
> That was pretty specific regarding the characteristics of a _watch _that would make a _watch_ more or less suitable for discussion in the forum. Indeed, would a non-WIS even understand what terms likes "ETA", "finissage", and or "generic movement" mean?
> 
> Thus, my point: the discussion makes explicit that some watches people are trying to exclude from the forum do, in fact, belong here. More importantly, it makes clear that inclusion is to be judged on the properties of the _watch_ (i.e. its movement, finissage, etc.), not the _brand_. Hence, discussions of _watches_ such as specific models from Chronoswiss, van der Klaauw, and Cartier belong here.


----------



## Tyrtle

*Re: I think that you may be confused...*



iim7v7im7 said:


> So I guess the question you are getting at is when should someone use the public forum vs. the high-end watches forum? I would usually start with the public forum and if no answer or dialogue happens move it over to here. So what is an example that you are thinking of? I agree that some brands have broad ranges of watches (some being high-end and others not). Let's see if we can test out your point and get somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> Bob


That's an interesting question, although it was not the point I was making. But if you want to consider the question, how about the following tests:

A manual wind PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
A quartz PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Maurice Lacroix using a standard but well finished Unitas movement:High-end watch forum or Public?
A Maurice Lacroix using a standard Unitas movement embellished by Benzinger:High-end watch forum or Public?
A Maurice Lacroix manufacture chronograph in 18k rose gold: High-end watch forum or Public? 
A manual wind JLC Reverso with solid case back: High-end watch forum or Public?
An identical looking quartz JLC Reverso: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Chronoswiss Delphis: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Chronoswiss Kairos with a well finsihed ETA 2892: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Rolex Daytona with a Rolex manufacture movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Rolex Daytona with a Zenith El Primero Movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Rolex Oysterquartz with a quartz movement: High-end watch forum or Public?

Bonus question: should we assign watches to the high end watch forum simply based on brand?


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: I think that you may be confused...*

I now think I see the point that you are trying to make. For some brands, every watch they make would be appropriate to post here because you are unlikely to get your answer elsewhere. For others you might get a better answer elsewhere on some of their watches. I don't think that people are excluding watches, just suggesting that you might get a better answer elsewhere.

No absolutes to the list below, but this is my suggestion...

A manual wind PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public? *High-end watches
*A quartz PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either* *but I'd suggest the High Accuracy Quartz Forum
*A Maurice Lacroix using a standard but well finished Unitas movement:High-end watch forum or Public? *Public Forum
*A Maurice Lacroix using a standard Unitas movement embellished by Benzinger:High-end watch forum or Public? *Public Forum*
A Maurice Lacroix manufacture chronograph in 18k rose gold: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either but I'd try* *High-end watches first*
A manual wind JLC Reverso with solid case back: High-end watch forum or Public? *Jaeger-LeCoultre Forum
*An identical looking quartz JLC Reverso: High-end watch forum or Public? *Jaeger-LeCoultre Forum*
A Chronoswiss Delphis: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either but I'd try Public Forum first*
A Chronoswiss Kairos with a well finsihed ETA 2892: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either but I'd try Public Forum
first
*A Rolex Daytona with a Rolex manufacture movement: High-end watch forum or Public? *Rolex Forum*
A Rolex Daytona with a Zenith El Primero Movement: High-end watch forum or Public? *Rolex Forum*
A Rolex Oysterquartz with a quartz movement: High-end watch forum or Public? *Rolex Forum*

Bonus question: should we assign watches to the high end watch forum simply based on brand? *Some brands yes, others no
*


Tyrtle said:


> That's an interesting question, although it was not the point I was making. But if you want to consider the question, how about the following tests:
> 
> A manual wind PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A quartz PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Maurice Lacroix using a standard but well finished Unitas movement:High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Maurice Lacroix using a standard Unitas movement embellished by Benzinger:High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Maurice Lacroix manufacture chronograph in 18k rose gold: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A manual wind JLC Reverso with solid case back: High-end watch forum or Public?
> An identical looking quartz JLC Reverso: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Chronoswiss Delphis: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Chronoswiss Kairos with a well finsihed ETA 2892: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Rolex Daytona with a Rolex manufacture movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Rolex Daytona with a Zenith El Primero Movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Rolex Oysterquartz with a quartz movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
> 
> Bonus question: should we assign watches to the high end watch forum simply based on brand?


----------



## Tyrtle

*Re: I think that you may be confused...*



iim7v7im7 said:


> I now think I see the point that you are trying to make. For some brands, every watch they make would be appropriate to post here because you are unlikely to get your answer elsewhere. For others you might get a better answer elsewhere on some of their watches. I don't think that people are excluding watches, just suggesting that you might get a better answer elsewhere.
> 
> No absolutes to the list below, but this is my suggestion...
> 
> A manual wind PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public? *High-end watches
> *A quartz PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either* *but I'd suggest the High Accuracy Quartz Forum
> *A Maurice Lacroix using a standard but well finished Unitas movement:High-end watch forum or Public? *Public Forum
> *A Maurice Lacroix using a standard Unitas movement embellished by Benzinger:High-end watch forum or Public? *Public Forum*
> A Maurice Lacroix manufacture chronograph in 18k rose gold: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either but I'd try* *High-end watches first*
> A manual wind JLC Reverso with solid case back: High-end watch forum or Public? *Jaeger-LeCoultre Forum
> *An identical looking quartz JLC Reverso: High-end watch forum or Public? *Jaeger-LeCoultre Forum*
> A Chronoswiss Delphis: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either but I'd try Public Forum first*
> A Chronoswiss Kairos with a well finsihed ETA 2892: High-end watch forum or Public? *Either but I'd try Public Forum
> first
> *A Rolex Daytona with a Rolex manufacture movement: High-end watch forum or Public? *Rolex Forum*
> A Rolex Daytona with a Zenith El Primero Movement: High-end watch forum or Public? *Rolex Forum*
> A Rolex Oysterquartz with a quartz movement: High-end watch forum or Public? *Rolex Forum*
> 
> Bonus question: should we assign watches to the high end watch forum simply based on brand? *Some brands yes, others no
> *


A little ducking and weaving going on there. To quote the exact question you raised:

_So I guess the question you are getting at is when should someone use the public forum vs. the high-end watches forum? _

The choices you cited were Public forum versus High-end watches. You excluded brand forums in your question about the value of public versus high end. Give it another try, just using the two options you offered in your original question.

Here you go:

A manual wind PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
A quartz PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Maurice Lacroix using a standard but well finished Unitas movement:High-end watch forum or Public?
A Maurice Lacroix using a standard Unitas movement embellished by Benzinger:High-end watch forum or Public?
A Maurice Lacroix manufacture chronograph in 18k rose gold: High-end watch forum or Public? 
A manual wind JLC Reverso with solid case back: High-end watch forum or Public?
An identical looking quartz JLC Reverso: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Chronoswiss Delphis: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Chronoswiss Kairos with a well finsihed ETA 2892: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Rolex Daytona with a Rolex manufacture movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Rolex Daytona with a Zenith El Primero Movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
A Rolex Oysterquartz with a quartz movement: High-end watch forum or Public?

Bonus question: should we assign watches to the high end watch forum simply based on brand?


----------



## iim7v7im7

*My answer*

Tyrtle,

I did answer your question in detail. Your constraining whether to post on public vs. high-end is an artificial constraint that makes no sense when there is a particular brand forum. As I said in an earlier post:

So _Hublot, IWC, _*JLC*_, Omega, Panerai, _*Rolex *and _Zenith_ all have their own forums. _A. Lange & Sohne, Dornblueth & Sohn, Glashutte Original_ or _Nomos Glashutte_ might be better discussed in the German brand forums So those are better places to discuss those brands.

You may not like the answers that I gave you but they are my honest opinion to where a conversation would best be located based on my experience. My question to you was posed assuming that there was *no brand forum* associated with the watch in question. There are no hard and fast rules (as you know). There is NOTHING that you cannot post in the public forum. Some things however, you'll receive a better answer here. You ALWAYS would have a better chance of discussion about a JLC or a Rolex there vs. here. This is not an esoteric concept.

Lastly, people take the time here to answer the questions of strangers because of a shared interest in a hobby. In many cases it takes time. I don't come here to get into circular, pointless arguments with posters that I do not know (some folks do!). You seem new here and appeared frustrated, so I reached out to help you. I would encourage you to not be so accusatory to strangers and be a little bit gracious if you ever expect people to take to the time to have a conversation with you.

Bob









Tyrtle said:


> A little ducking and weaving going on there. To quote the exact question you raised:
> 
> _So I guess the question you are getting at is when should someone use the public forum vs. the high-end watches forum? _
> 
> The choices you cited were Public forum versus High-end watches. You excluded brand forums in your question about the value of public versus high end. Give it another try, just using the two options you offered in your original question.
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> A manual wind PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A quartz PP Calatrava: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A MauriceLacroix using a standard but well finished Unitas movement:High-end watch forum or Public?
> A MauriceLacroix using a standard Unitas movement embellished by Benzinger:High-end watch forum or Public?
> A MauriceLacroix manufacture chronograph in 18k rose gold: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A manual wind JLC Reverso with solid case back: High-end watch forum or Public?
> An identical looking quartz JLC Reverso: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Chronoswiss Delphis: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Chronoswiss Kairos with a well finsihed ETA 2892: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Rolex Daytona with a Rolex manufacture movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Rolex Daytona with a Zenith El Primero Movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
> A Rolex Oysterquartz with a quartz movement: High-end watch forum or Public?
> 
> Bonus question: should we assign watches to the high end watch forum simply based on brand?


----------



## Tyrtle

*Re: My answer*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Tyrtle,
> 
> I did answer your question in detail. Your constraining whether to post on public vs. high-end is an artificial constraint that makes no sense when there is a particular brand forum.


Bob,

I was just asking you to answer within the constraints you yourself placed on the question. I figured if you felt they were fair when posing the question to me, you would feel the same when answering it yourself:









Originally Posted by *iim7v7im7* 
_So I guess the question you are getting at is when should someone use the public forum vs. the high-end watches forum? I would usually start with the public forum and if no answer or dialogue happens move it over to here. So what is an example that you are thinking of? I agree that some brands have broad ranges of watches (some being high-end and others not). Let's see if we can test out your point and get somewhere?



Bob_

I'm sorry if I offended you. If it is any consolation, I would class all of the watches in your signature as high-end =)

But I think this discussion reinforces the point I was making in the original post: "high-end watch" is defined by the watch, not the brand. The test I provided at your request illustrated that point. High reputation brands make some watches that don't belong in a high-end watch forum. Conversely, mid-range brands make watches that do belong here.

In other words, respect each watch for its own merits, not based on marketing characteristics like brand or price.


----------



## wrist boy

aznseank said:


> I have a very low opinion of both TAG and Omega but... omega does have the co-axial. TAG is pure ETA. Omega is the lesser of the two evil.


Wow, really? What about Seiko?


----------



## Omjlc

I think questions whether certain quartz watches belong in the high-end forum are answered in the sub-heading under the forum heading: 
"_Forum dedicated to high-end watch brands, not being high-end quartz watches_."


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: My answer*

No worries...



Tyrtle said:


> Bob,
> 
> I was just asking you to answer within the constraints you yourself placed on the question. I figured if you felt they were fair when posing the question to me, you would feel the same when answering it yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iim7v7im7*
> _So I guess the question you are getting at is when should someone use the public forum vs. the high-end watches forum? I would usually start with the public forum and if no answer or dialogue happens move it over to here. So what is an example that you are thinking of? I agree that some brands have broad ranges of watches (some being high-end and others not). Let's see if we can test out your point and get somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> Bob_
> 
> I'm sorry if I offended you. If it is any consolation, I would class all of the watches in your signature as high-end =)
> 
> But I think this discussion reinforces the point I was making in the original post: "high-end watch" is defined by the watch, not the brand. The test I provided at your request illustrated that point. High reputation brands make some watches that don't belong in a high-end watch forum. Conversely, mid-range brands make watches that do belong here.
> 
> In other words, respect each watch for its own merits, not based on marketing characteristics like brand or price.


----------



## anon_penpal

*Re: The circle game...*

I agree with your point about this being a forum for all of those high-end watches that do not have another forum. But there is also room here for discussion of some of those watches that do have their own forums. For example, "Should I get the Lange or the JLC?" Change that question to IWC vs Omega and perhaps then the question doesn't belong here.



iim7v7im7 said:


> This forum is not about who is high-end and who is not. It is a catch all for high-end brands without individual forums to discuss them in. So on WUS, German Brand Forum covers a myriad of German brands (e.g. A. Lange & Sohne and Glashutte Original are represented there). Other brands have individual forums of their own (e.g. Grand Seiko, Hublot, IWC, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Rolex and Zenith for example). But there are many high-end brands that have no representation on WUS other than in the Public Forum such as:
> 
> Audemars Piguet
> Blancpain
> Breguet
> Chopard
> FP Journe
> Girard-Perregaux
> Jaquet Droz
> H. Moser & Cie.
> Parmigiani
> Patek Philippe
> Piaget
> Ulysse Nardin
> Vacheron Constantin
> 
> Come to mind (there are many others). This is why a catch all forum was created. The endless debate of who is high-end and who is not will continue in cyber-circles as proven in this thread.
> 
> My $ .02,
> 
> Bob


----------



## The1

*Re: The circle game...*

Thank you for a very entertaining thread everyone.

Just to prove I've been bored the last 2 days, I've read every post 

I feel like there are a lot of fan boys getting worked up over nothing because they feel like they aren't being accepted in this "exclusive club"

The entire point of this forum was a refuge for owners of lesser known brands to come and be able to have conversation without being bothered by others who might normally post in the general forums.

Someone with a GO isn't going to go into the Zenith forum and start posting about their watch for not reason, and that's sort of the point of this forum. The people in here don't want to hear about the newest Diesel watches. If they did, they would go into the fashion forum or general and etc.

Straight up, this thread shouldn't exist as it was laid out right from the start what the purpose of this forum was for.

And one more point, the only reason I believe the moderators having intervened in this, or locked this thread is likely because they have been entertained by the pointlessness of it.

I really hate to say it, and sorry if it comes off as an insult, but, if i wanted to see pointless circling debates that have no resolution. I would go to a Honda Civic forum and read what 16 year olds have to say. The only difference here is people's usage of better vocabulary and a slightly better ability to stay on topic (and I even question that)

Is there any way to end the petty arguing and just focus on the topic? or is all people do around her is nit pic, and add a new unseen rule to arguments just to make it suit their needs?


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: The circle game...*

|> You deserve some sort of 'hero medal' for wading through all of this.


The1 said:


> Thank you for a very entertaining thread everyone.
> 
> Just to prove I've been bored the last 2 days, I've read every post
> 
> I feel like there are a lot of fan boys getting worked up over nothing because they feel like they aren't being accepted in this "exclusive club"
> 
> The entire point of this forum was a refuge for owners of lesser known brands to come and be able to have conversation without being bothered by others who might normally post in the general forums.
> 
> Someone with a GO isn't going to go into the Zenith forum and start posting about their watch for not reason, and that's sort of the point of this forum. The people in here don't want to hear about the newest Diesel watches. If they did, they would go into the fashion forum or general and etc.
> 
> Straight up, this thread shouldn't exist as it was laid out right from the start what the purpose of this forum was for.
> 
> And one more point, the only reason I believe the moderators having intervened in this, or locked this thread is likely because they have been entertained by the pointlessness of it.
> 
> I really hate to say it, and sorry if it comes off as an insult, but, if i wanted to see pointless circling debates that have no resolution. I would go to a Honda Civic forum and read what 16 year olds have to say. The only difference here is people's usage of better vocabulary and a slightly better ability to stay on topic (and I even question that)
> 
> Is there any way to end the petty arguing and just focus on the topic? or is all people do around her is nit pic, and add a new unseen rule to arguments just to make it suit their needs?


----------



## The1

*Re: The circle game...*



Watchbreath said:


> |> You deserve some sort of 'hero medal' for wading through all of this.


I was doing about 3 threads at the same time. So I think a "bordom" medal would be more likely.

I do have to say though, there were some pretty entertaining posts.


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: The circle game...*

We due our best.


The1 said:


> I was doing about 3 threads at the same time. So I think a "bordom" medal would be more likely.
> 
> I do have to say though, there were some pretty entertaining posts.


----------



## Oboema Sesetokoe

I think ap and pp are realy high-end.


----------



## TK-421

*Re: The circle game...*

the GO could be posted in the German Forum or Swatch Forum.



The1 said:


> Thank you for a very entertaining thread everyone.
> 
> Just to prove I've been bored the last 2 days, I've read every post
> 
> I feel like there are a lot of fan boys getting worked up over nothing because they feel like they aren't being accepted in this "exclusive club"
> 
> The entire point of this forum was a refuge for owners of lesser known brands to come and be able to have conversation without being bothered by others who might normally post in the general forums.
> 
> Someone with a GO isn't going to go into the Zenith forum and start posting about their watch for not reason, and that's sort of the point of this forum. The people in here don't want to hear about the newest Diesel watches. If they did, they would go into the fashion forum or general and etc.
> 
> Straight up, this thread shouldn't exist as it was laid out right from the start what the purpose of this forum was for.
> 
> And one more point, the only reason I believe the moderators having intervened in this, or locked this thread is likely because they have been entertained by the pointlessness of it.
> 
> I really hate to say it, and sorry if it comes off as an insult, but, if i wanted to see pointless circling debates that have no resolution. I would go to a Honda Civic forum and read what 16 year olds have to say. The only difference here is people's usage of better vocabulary and a slightly better ability to stay on topic (and I even question that)
> 
> Is there any way to end the petty arguing and just focus on the topic? or is all people do around her is nit pic, and add a new unseen rule to arguments just to make it suit their needs?


----------



## blansky

*Re: The circle game...*

Hi everyone. This is my first post here and enjoyed reading this thread.

My suggestion is instead of calling certain watches "high end" which denotes high price to most people, maybe you could name it "high horology" which maybe is more indicative of watches that are more concerned with complications, beautifully finished in house movements and incredible cases and dials.

Then the "luxury brands" can cover the rest of the field.


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: The circle game...*



blansky said:


> Hi everyone. This is my first post here and enjoyed reading this thread.
> 
> My suggestion is instead of calling certain watches "high end" which denotes high price to most people, maybe you could name it "high horology" which maybe is more indicative of watches that are more concerned with complications, beautifully finished in house movements and incredible cases and dials.
> 
> Then the "luxury brands" can cover the rest of the field.


To many of us, high-end definitely does not denote high-price. Plenty of ridiculously over-priced timepieces out there. Ironically, there are some excellent values as well out there that exhibit a truly high level of quality.

One thing I've learned since becoming interested in this hobby is that, with watches, you honestly don't get what you pay for much of the time. Sometimes you get more, often you get less. In a few cases, a whole helluva lot less.


----------



## The1

*Re: The circle game...*

examples of less that one might watch out for?


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: The circle game...*

,,


The1 said:


> examples of less that one might watch out for?


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: The circle game...*



The1 said:


> examples of less that one might watch out for?


Far too many to list. Most blatant example I've seen as far as a single brand goes, Hublot. As far as individual timepieces goes, TAG Heuer 500M. Notorious for striped crown issue. TAG won't fix the problem under warranty because it claims it's not a warranty issue. 500m water-resistance means nothing if the watch's crown pops out due to striped threads. The problem with the 500M is actually a design flaw. Easy fix would be for TAG Heuer to switch to a crown tube with threads on the outside of it, and corresponding threads on the inside of the crown. That would maximize the surface area available and prevent the threads from being truly tiny, and thus far too easy to strip.

Just a couple of examples.


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: The circle game...*

Hi,

While I understand your thought, then where would you suggest someone who want to post a thread relating to a simple watch made by AP, BP, Breguet, Chopard, FP Journe, GP, J*D, Moser, Parmigiani, Piaget, PP, UN, VC etc. all of who has no forum post their thread?

This forum was created as a repository for posts relating to fine watches who have no brand sub-forum (which many high-end watches do here at WUS), regional sub-forum like the German forum (ALS, GO, Nomos etc.) as a place where a poster might get a bit more focus than the Public Forum. Somehow, this thread has a life of its own and has become a philosophical debate about who belongs and who doesn't. One could get answers in the Public Forum, but this was set up as a catch-all bucket to provide some focus.

Can one post a question about an IWC, JLC, Rolex, Seiko, or Zenith here, even though they have their own forums? Absolutely. You might get a good answer. Many collectors who frequent these parts have or do own many brands of watches.

I believe that earlier in this thread I cited an example where I posted a Jaquet Droz watch on the Public Forum and did not receive any replies. Where a week later after posting it here I did. This is exactly why WUS created this forum. It is a subset audience. Many collectors either have no direct knowledge nor do they care about these types of watches.

It is about signal over noise...

My $.02,

Bob



blansky said:


> Hi everyone. This is my first post here and enjoyed reading this thread.
> 
> My suggestion is instead of calling certain watches "high end" which denotes high price to most people, maybe you could name it "high horology" which maybe is more indicative of watches that are more concerned with complications, beautifully finished in house movements and incredible cases and dials.
> 
> Then the "luxury brands" can cover the rest of the field.


----------



## Johannes P. Bester

Hi

I'm new to this forum and couldn't resist posting my first comment in reply to the topic of who uses ETA based movements. ETA movements are everywhere you expect them to be, from the likes of Swatch and Tissot all the way up the ladder to bigger luxury brands such as Omega, TAGHeuer, Cartier and Breitling. That I can accept to a certain degree, but when a brand touts itself as a high end watch manufacture it should carefully consider its stance going forward!

I am a qualified watchmaker with experience on this matter. Believe me when I say I have seen what should have remained hidden inside their big brand 18K gold cases. The sad fact is that many high end watch manufactures are guilty of placing profits above all else. At the very top you may well find an abundance of shiny new tourbillons and minute repeating perpetual calenders etc. launched at SIHH and Basel every year, but what keeps the coffers full are those entry-level and mid-tier pieces that prey on the unsuspecting public who dream of buying into high horology. It is there that you will discover, hidden behind solid case backs, all the Valjoux movements you can stomach. My personal opinion on Valjoux is biased, only because I find it an economical movement when inside a $2,000 watch. When that same movement is housed inside a $20,000 timepiece I find it extremely lacking, disturbing, misrepresenting and disappointing! One example springs to mind, that of a 1990's AP using an unadorned (read: cheap) Valjoux 7750 movement with a perpetual calender module stuck onto it. There are of course many more such examples, but one should be enough to prove my point that greed is alive and well! 

Regards, 

Johannes

ps: Adam, this AP in question was not a fake!!


----------



## Watchbreath

:-s You make them sound like the pyramid builders and bubble makers of Wall Street.


Johannes P. Bester said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm new to this forum and couldn't resist posting my first comment in reply to the topic of who uses ETA based movements. ETA movements are everywhere you expect them to be, from the likes of Swatch and Tissot all the way up the ladder to bigger luxury brands such as Omega, TAGHeuer, Cartier and Breitling. That I can accept to a certain degree, but when a brand touts itself as a high end watch manufacture it should carefully consider its stance going forward!
> 
> I am a qualified watchmaker with experience on this matter. Believe me when I say I have seen what should have remained hidden inside their big brand 18K gold cases. The sad fact is that many high end watch manufactures are guilty of placing profits above all else. At the very top you may well find an abundance of shiny new tourbillons and minute repeating perpetual calenders etc. launched at SIHH and Basel every year, but what keeps the coffers full are those entry-level and mid-tier pieces that prey on the unsuspecting public who dream of buying into high horology. It is there that you will discover, hidden behind solid case backs, all the Valjoux movements you can stomach. My personal opinion on Valjoux is biased, only because I find it an economical movement when inside a $2,000 watch. When that same movement is housed inside a $20,000 timepiece I find it extremely lacking, disturbing, misrepresenting and disappointing! One example springs to mind, that of a 1990's AP using an unadorned (read: cheap) Valjoux 7750 movement with a perpetual calender module stuck onto it. There are of course many more such examples, but one should be enough to prove my point that greed is alive and well!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Johannes
> 
> ps: Adam, this AP in question was not a fake!!


----------



## jb68902

Many people have been including Blancpain and Breguet in their "high end list," and while I can agree with that, I don't think they are as important to the horological world as JLC, which many people have ranked as lower. 

If you look at their history with watches such as the Reverso Gyrotourbillon, the Gyrotourbillon, the new Duometre a spherotourbillon, the Master Minute Repeater, etc you see that they are on top of horological innovation. I don't even think AP and VC is innovating like JLC. 

So for me, I see high-end watches as being watches from a company that innovates, has a rich history, and feature elegant and tasteful designs.

I think that JLC even though it sells pieces that are relatively inepensive, I see it as being a superior producer of watches than Blancpain and Bruguet.

So here's my list:
High end, in terms of horological significance:
Patek
Jaeger
Vacheron
Audemars
A Lange
Glashutte
And I'd include Ulysse Nardin on this list because of watches like the GMT perpetual, the Moonstruck, and the Freak.

That's not to say that Rolex, Omega, Breitling, and similar watch makers aren't making good watches. And of course Blancpain and Brugeut still produce fantastic watches like the Fifty Fathoms.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## stratct

Depends on what you consider "high end" me? I'm poor lol so I consider omega IWC and Rolex high end were as TAG is "higher end" or "high-ish end"


----------



## stratct

Oh and Armand Nicolet too


----------



## Tyrtle

Johannes P. Bester said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm new to this forum and couldn't resist posting my first comment in reply to the topic of who uses ETA based movements. ETA movements are everywhere you expect them to be, from the likes of Swatch and Tissot all the way up the ladder to bigger luxury brands such as Omega, TAGHeuer, Cartier and Breitling. That I can accept to a certain degree, but when a brand touts itself as a high end watch manufacture it should carefully consider its stance going forward!
> 
> I am a qualified watchmaker with experience on this matter. Believe me when I say I have seen what should have remained hidden inside their big brand 18K gold cases. The sad fact is that many high end watch manufactures are guilty of placing profits above all else. At the very top you may well find an abundance of shiny new tourbillons and minute repeating perpetual calenders etc. launched at SIHH and Basel every year, but what keeps the coffers full are those entry-level and mid-tier pieces that prey on the unsuspecting public who dream of buying into high horology. It is there that you will discover, hidden behind solid case backs, all the Valjoux movements you can stomach. My personal opinion on Valjoux is biased, only because I find it an economical movement when inside a $2,000 watch. When that same movement is housed inside a $20,000 timepiece I find it extremely lacking, disturbing, misrepresenting and disappointing! One example springs to mind, that of a 1990's AP using an unadorned (read: cheap) Valjoux 7750 movement with a perpetual calender module stuck onto it. There are of course many more such examples, but one should be enough to prove my point that greed is alive and well!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Johannes
> 
> ps: Adam, this AP in question was not a fake!!


I think you hit the nail on the head. Their are some watches from expensive brands that don't like up to title of "high end watch", while there are specific models from less expensive brands that do.

In your experience, what watches have surprised you, in a positive way, when you opened them up?


----------



## SgtClaymore

IWC, Rolex, and Breitling are 3 high end watch companies for sure!


----------



## Dancing Fire

SgtClaymore said:


> IWC, Rolex, and Breitling are 3 high end watch companies for sure!


oh really?? :think: i think this is a joke.


----------



## The1

I just assumed they didn't read the thread.


----------



## swo

Johannes P. Bester said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm new to this forum and couldn't resist posting my first comment in reply to the topic of who uses ETA based movements. ETA movements are everywhere you expect them to be, from the likes of Swatch and Tissot all the way up the ladder to bigger luxury brands such as Omega, TAGHeuer, Cartier and Breitling. That I can accept to a certain degree, but when a brand touts itself as a high end watch manufacture it should carefully consider its stance going forward!
> 
> I am a qualified watchmaker with experience on this matter. Believe me when I say I have seen what should have remained hidden inside their big brand 18K gold cases. The sad fact is that many high end watch manufactures are guilty of placing profits above all else. At the very top you may well find an abundance of shiny new tourbillons and minute repeating perpetual calenders etc. launched at SIHH and Basel every year, but what keeps the coffers full are those entry-level and mid-tier pieces that prey on the unsuspecting public who dream of buying into high horology. It is there that you will discover, hidden behind solid case backs, all the Valjoux movements you can stomach. My personal opinion on Valjoux is biased, only because I find it an economical movement when inside a $2,000 watch. When that same movement is housed inside a $20,000 timepiece I find it extremely lacking, disturbing, misrepresenting and disappointing! One example springs to mind, that of a 1990's AP using an unadorned (read: cheap) Valjoux 7750 movement with a perpetual calender module stuck onto it. There are of course many more such examples, but one should be enough to prove my point that greed is alive and well!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Johannes
> 
> ps: Adam, this AP in question was not a fake!!


Would you be so kind as to elaborate to the specific model of AP you are referring to? Thanks in advance..


----------



## Mr.Kane

I say a watch brand that makes a watch line $7,500 or more that people actually buy. This brand is the definition of high end to me....


----------



## Nishant

PP 
VC
JLC
A.Lange
GO
AP
G.Seiko

Rest of the brands can keep up the fight ...


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: Thomas Prescher, doesn't have to fight.


Nishant said:


> PP
> VC
> JLC
> A.Lange
> GO
> AP
> G.Seiko
> 
> Rest of the brands can keep up the fight ...


----------



## stratct

Spit161 said:


> Luxury Brands?
> Rolex,
> Breitling,
> Omega,
> IWC,
> Bulgari,
> Panerai,
> Hublot,
> Tag,
> Bremont,
> Montblanc,
> Bell and Ross.
> 
> High-end Brands:
> Patek,
> JLC,
> AP,
> Blancpain,
> Cartier,
> Lange,
> Greubel Forsey,
> Corum,
> Breguet,
> Glashutte...
> 
> cheers.


I dont own a "high end" watch but I do own a couple luxury watches. This statement is right on!


----------



## TK-421

i would think more luxury.



SgtClaymore said:


> IWC, Rolex, and Breitling are 3 high end watch companies for sure!


----------



## craiglaub

Dancing Fire said:


> monocrom...let me tell you a funny story.
> 
> last week when i was having lunch with a friend of mine he was showing off his new $2500 TAG watch,he said ...the next time when you are in the market for a new watch please give me a call and i'll show you what to look for in a high end watch. he look at my watch for 5 seconds and then go...:roll: btw; i was sporting a RG Lange 1 MP.


Probably my favorite watch I've ever seen (on a computer screen). I personally would like to take a moment to have this watch permanently etched in my mind. mmmmmm....OK done. Great story by the way.


----------



## Sc00ter

About 1h later... I finished reading 16 pages
Very interesting...and I kind of agree with this guy...

*Luxury Brands?*
_Rolex,_
_Breitling,_
_Omega,_
_IWC,_
_Bulgari,_
_Panerai,_
_Hublot,_
_Tag,_
_Bremont,_
_Montblanc,_
_Bell and Ross._

*High-end Brands:*
_Patek,_
_JLC,_
_AP,_
_Blancpain,_
_Cartier,_
_Lange,_
_Greubel Forsey,_
_Corum,_
_Breguet,_
_Glashutte..._


----------



## CrDmRep

I would replace G.Seiko with UN. My personal opinion is that G.Seiko is not high end. As mentioned before, Blancpain and Breguet are definitey up there. JLC is definitely next on my list.


----------



## TK-421

how about alpina, now that they have billy baldwin?


----------



## thecustomer

So, just out of curiosity why is Lang and Patek not in Luxury category? I always considered these to be "higher end" than say Omega and definitely Tag. Or perhaps I am reading this the other way round. Is High End better than Luxury?



Sc00ter said:


> About 1h later... I finished reading 16 pages
> Very interesting...and I kind of agree with this guy...
> 
> *Luxury Brands?*
> _Rolex,_
> _Breitling,_
> _Omega,_
> _IWC,_
> _Bulgari,_
> _Panerai,_
> _Hublot,_
> _Tag,_
> _Bremont,_
> _Montblanc,_
> _Bell and Ross._
> 
> *High-end Brands:*
> _Patek,_
> _JLC,_
> _AP,_
> _Blancpain,_
> _Cartier,_
> _Lange,_
> _Greubel Forsey,_
> _Corum,_
> _Breguet,_
> _Glashutte..._


----------



## The1

thecustomer said:


> So, just out of curiosity why is Lang and Patek not in Luxury category? I always considered these to be "higher end" than say Omega and definitely Tag. Or perhaps I am reading this the other way round. Is High End better than Luxury?


you're reading it backwards from their intended purpose.

The titles of the groupings could be seen as misleading.


----------



## thecustomer

The1 said:


> you're reading it backwards from their intended purpose.
> 
> The titles of the groupings could be seen as misleading.


Got it. So "High End" is considered better than "Luxury" then. Now the list makes a little more sense to me.


----------



## Monocrom

thecustomer said:


> Got it. So "High End" is considered better than "Luxury" then. Now the list makes a little more sense to me.


"Luxury" is what you use to impress those who work for their money. "High-end" is what you wear to impress those who can afford to live off the interest in their bank accounts.


----------



## LambChopFamily

I agree to most of the list - minus CORUM ..... Why Corum???? please tell me!!



Sc00ter said:


> About 1h later... I finished reading 16 pages
> Very interesting...and I kind of agree with this guy...
> 
> *Luxury Brands?*
> _Rolex,_
> _Breitling,_
> _Omega,_
> _IWC,_
> _Bulgari,_
> _Panerai,_
> _Hublot,_
> _Tag,_
> _Bremont,_
> _Montblanc,_
> _Bell and Ross._
> 
> *High-end Brands:*
> _Patek,_
> _JLC,_
> _AP,_
> _Blancpain,_
> _Cartier,_
> _Lange,_
> _Greubel Forsey,_
> _Corum,_
> _Breguet,_
> _Glashutte..._


----------



## thecustomer

I am drawing a blank this morning; What is "AP" again? And where would you guys fit Zenith? as in is there a 3rd list below Luxury level, and what would that list be titled; "Mid range", "sub luxury" etc.? Thanks! This is an excellent thread.


----------



## The1

Just remember, this is all peoples personal opinions. Yes some should be there without a doubt. some might be a bit more questionable/debatable.

AP is Ademars Piguet
As for Zenith, I think they make a fantastic watch. The finish on the one I own isn't far off from the finish on my JLC I probably would put them under the same category as Rolex though. But I don't think I'd put TAG in that category, though again, that one is arguable because they have made some notable contributions to the world of Horologie in recent times. But still, I think only those specific watches should be in the category, not the entire brand.


----------



## thecustomer

The1 said:


> Just remember, this is all peoples personal opinions. Yes some should be there without a doubt. some might be a bit more questionable/debatable.
> 
> AP is Ademars Piguet
> As for Zenith, I think they make a fantastic watch. The finish on the one I own isn't far off from the finish on my JLC I probably would put them under the same category as Rolex though. But I don't think I'd put TAG in that category, though again, that one is arguable because they have made some notable contributions to the world of Horologie in recent times. But still, I think only those specific watches should be in the category, not the entire brand.


Thanks! Yes, I personally would replace Tag with Zenith on this list in a heartbeat.


----------



## TK-421

i agree with that whole heartedly. Zenith is miles ahead of TAG Hoyer.



thecustomer said:


> Thanks! Yes, I personally would replace Tag with Zenith on this list in a heartbeat.


----------



## thecustomer

I have taken the liberty to tweak the list a little bit:

*High-end Brands:
*_Patek,_
_JLC,_
_AP,_
_Blancpain,
__Jaquet Droz_
_Cartier,_
_Lange,_
_Greubel Forsey,_
_Corum,_
_Breguet,_
_Glashutte...
__Girard Perregaux_*

Luxury Brands?
*_Rolex,_
_Breitling,_
_Omega,_
_IWC,_
_Bulgari,_
_Panerai,_
_Hublot,_
_Zenith,_
_Bremont,_
_Montblanc,_
_Bell and Ross._


----------



## TK-421

you forgot to remove Corum.



thecustomer said:


> I have taken the liberty to tweak the list a little bit:
> 
> *High-end Brands:
> *_Patek,_
> _JLC,_
> _AP,_
> _Blancpain,
> __Jaquet Droz_
> _Cartier,_
> _Lange,_
> _Greubel Forsey,_
> _Corum,_
> _Breguet,_
> _Glashutte...
> __Girard Perregaux_*
> 
> Luxury Brands?
> *_Rolex,_
> _Breitling,_
> _Omega,_
> _IWC,_
> _Bulgari,_
> _Panerai,_
> _Hublot,_
> _Zenith,_
> _Bremont,_
> _Montblanc,_
> _Bell and Ross._


----------



## mleok

No love for Vacheron?


----------



## Mr.Kane

LambChopFamily said:


> I agree to most of the list - minus CORUM ..... Why Corum???? please tell me!!


This should help. Titanium bridge, in house. Gold coin, dated I know, but a modern classic. They also make a few tourbillons in their ac line. All their eta are highly modified and cosc certified.


----------



## bosjohn

I have read with great interest this thread more than half way through so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.
Oh and I am new in the high end section here but I post regularly elsewhere on watchuseek
What has been omitted from the discussion is the term High End its self. if memory serves high end became the phrase of choice during the eighties advertising folks trying to tell Yuppies where they should blow their discretionary funds. High end in those days had little to do with real quality and all to do with image and perceived quality. It was more about image than anything else. Frankly I think using the term "highend" is a bit of a slam for most of the fine watches mentioned. They are way beyond high end at least as the public perceives high end. If you ask the average joe in the street what the best watch brand he knows and I will bet the farm he says rollex, Why because rollex did a really great pr job projecting themselves in the eighties as the in watch to have. Rollex may or may not be a fine watch but its the one the unwashed masses will recognize on your wrist and rip off when the b and e your home. 
Many years ago when I lived in Cambridge Ma. I owned a leica M2 and an olympus om1. When I was broken into the om1 was stolen along with some other things and the leica was left. The om was hot then in the news and advertising even though the leica was worth three times as much

If build quality accuracy fit and finish are the ultimate arbiter then the GS very fine would be the just about the top of the heap but sigh its Japanese and it seems no Japanese watch will make your list even one forty two or so years old. you remember the watch that destroyed the swiss at the chronometer competitions. But you gotta hand it to the Swiss they know how to handle a threat, after all the hand wringing and angst they cancelled future competitions. When they resumed them years later they said it was thier ball and the japanese were not invited to play.
It is not for me to propose you accept the GS very fine as one of the all time best watches in history but the record speaks for itself. Incidentally as far as hand finished or bench built the early GS through the 6146 were pretty much bench made. The introduction the the 28000 series in 71 or so ushered in the automated assembly.


----------



## The1

You've missed the point though. This is 30 years on. Things change meaning 

Actually, I think the titles are backwards. Or the name "high end" should be something a little more meaningful then just "high end"

Like hyper luxury or luxury exotica. 

It's like saying "high end cars" are BMW and Mercedes, but when you compare them to rolls, and Bently, high end kind of loses meaning.

Sadly though, this thread is 17 pages in, and already set in a direction. So there's not much chance of changing wording.

All that being said, "luxury" fits the bill in my opinion of the tag, rolex, omega group. And your description including "yuppies" is pretty much why.
Sadly, there are a few ideas like to see out of that list, but I don't believe they should be in the "high end" list either mostly due to the bad image some watches give the luxury list.


----------



## macleod1979

I concur TK-421, but why aren't you at your post???

-J


----------



## Tyrtle

Cartier in High End while Zenith is in Luxury? Really? Perhaps, if you think of Cartier Calibres and ignore the quartz and ETA Santos's running around. This list is evidence that such lists of watch brands are impractical. When judging based on brand rather than individual watches, there are always contradictions.

Watches are high end. Not brands.
SEE: Patek Quartz Calatrava, JLC Quartz Reverso



thecustomer said:


> I have taken the liberty to tweak the list a little bit:
> 
> *High-end Brands:
> *_Patek,_
> _JLC,_
> _AP,_
> _Blancpain,
> __Jaquet Droz_
> _Cartier,_
> _Lange,_
> _Greubel Forsey,_
> _Corum,_
> _Breguet,_
> _Glashutte...
> __Girard Perregaux_*
> 
> Luxury Brands?
> *_Rolex,_
> _Breitling,_
> _Omega,_
> _IWC,_
> _Bulgari,_
> _Panerai,_
> _Hublot,_
> _Zenith,_
> _Bremont,_
> _Montblanc,_
> _Bell and Ross._


----------



## The1

of all those in that list, you pick zenith to pick on and compare to Cartier???

I fully believe Zenith belongs there over many others in that list. 

But yes, Cartier should be in that list. And if we watch closely, it might one day move it's way onto the high-end list, if they make some good choices in the near future and get better at decorating/finishing their new in house movement.


----------



## sidders

thecustomer said:


> I have taken the liberty to tweak the list a little bit:
> 
> *High-end Brands:
> *_Patek,_
> _JLC,_
> _AP,_
> _Blancpain,
> __Jaquet Droz_
> _Cartier,_
> _Lange,_
> _Greubel Forsey,_
> _Corum,_
> _Breguet,_
> _Glashutte...
> __Girard Perregaux_*
> 
> Luxury Brands?
> *_Rolex,_
> _Breitling,_
> _Omega,_
> _IWC,_
> _Bulgari,_
> _Panerai,_
> _Hublot,_
> _Zenith,_
> _Bremont,_
> _Montblanc,_
> _Bell and Ross._


What about VC? Surely they high end?


----------



## The1

*DISCLAIMER:
*
This is just a statistical opinion based list. Your opinion may vary due to different ideals and etc. As this is just an opinion based list, there is not need to be put out because of it. What you believe should be placed in one list, but isn't in the list you would like it to be, is open for debate. It is also debatable that there are some watches from some brands that definitely are high end while the rest of the brand is just luxury. This list is just for fun, and to be taken as just that. Please feel free to modify the list, but be warned, not everyone will necessarily agree.
*

High-end Brands:
Patek,
JLC,
AP,
Blancpain,
Jaquet Droz
Cartier,
Lange,
Greubel Forsey,
Corum,
Breguet,
Glashutte Original, *(added "Original" to avoid confusion as many german brands use Glashutte in their names)
*Girard Perregaux,
**Vacheron Constantin

Luxury Brands?
Rolex,
Breitling,
Omega,
IWC,
Bulgari,
Panerai,
Hublot,
**Zenith,**
Bremont,
Montblanc,
Bell and Ross,
Cartier,
Parrelet,
and many more...*


----------



## Mr.Kane

sidders said:


> What about VC? Surely they high end?


I'm pretty sure there is no question about that...


----------



## AaaVee

This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.









*HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)

Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin
Breguet
A.Lange & Sohne
Audemars Piguet
Jaeger-LeCoultre
Blancpain
FP Journe
Glashutte Original
Gerald Genta
Girard-Perregaux









*HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)

Richard Mille
Harry Winston
MB&F
Urwerk
Voutilainen
Romaine Jerome
De Grisogono
Habring
Hautlence
Konstantin Chaykin
Sarpaneva
Speake-Marin
Thomas Prescher
Gronefeld
Devon









*PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)

IWC
Rolex
Omega
Ulysse Nardin
Frank Muller
Panerai
Zenith
Piaget
Cartier
Hublot
Breitling
Chopard
Corum
Tag Heuer
Bell&Ross
Nomos
Chronoswiss
Baume & Mercier
Maurice Lacroix
Perrelet
Grand Seiko
Linde Werdelin
U-Boat
Longines
Montblanc









*QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)

Rado
Tissot
Mido
Hamilton
Frederique Constant
Oris
Certina
Raymond Weil
Sinn
Fortis
Seiko
Revue Thommen
Bremont
Stowa
Junghans
Movado
Seagull
Laco
Archimede
Christopher Ward
Magrette
Steinhart
Lum-Tec
Vostok-Europe
Kemmner









*BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)

Citizen
Grovana
TW Steel
Jacques Lemans
Swatch
Skagen
Festina
Orient
Lorus
Casio
Q&Q
HMT
Parnis
Tao
Alpha









*FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)

Emporio Armani
Calvin Klein
Diesel
Nixon
Guess
Hugo Boss
BMW etc.


----------



## Roller.959

AaaVee said:


> This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
> I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
> Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.
> 
> View attachment 695234
> 
> 
> *HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)
> 
> Patek Philippe
> Vacheron Constantin
> Breguet
> A.Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Piguet
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Blancpain
> FP Journe
> Glashutte Original
> Gerald Genta
> Girard-Perregaux
> 
> View attachment 695235
> 
> 
> *HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)
> 
> Richard Mille
> Harry Winston
> MB&F
> Urwerk
> Voutilainen
> Romaine Jerome
> De Grisogono
> Habring
> Hautlence
> Konstantin Chaykin
> Sarpaneva
> Speake-Marin
> Thomas Prescher
> Gronefeld
> Devon
> 
> View attachment 695236
> 
> 
> *PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)
> 
> IWC
> Rolex
> Omega
> Ulysse Nardin
> Frank Muller
> Panerai
> Zenith
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Hublot
> Breitling
> Chopard
> Corum
> Tag Heuer
> Bell&Ross
> Nomos
> Chronoswiss
> Baume & Mercier
> Maurice Lacroix
> Perrelet
> Grand Seiko
> Linde Werdelin
> U-Boat
> Longines
> Montblanc
> 
> View attachment 695237
> 
> 
> *QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)
> 
> Rado
> Tissot
> Mido
> Hamilton
> Frederique Constant
> Oris
> Certina
> Raymond Weil
> Sinn
> Fortis
> Seiko
> Revue Thommen
> Bremont
> Stowa
> Junghans
> Movado
> Seagull
> Laco
> Archimede
> Christopher Ward
> Magrette
> Steinhart
> Lum-Tec
> Vostok-Europe
> Kemmner
> 
> View attachment 695238
> 
> 
> *BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)
> 
> Citizen
> Grovana
> TW Steel
> Jacques Lemans
> Swatch
> Skagen
> Festina
> Orient
> Lorus
> Casio
> Q&Q
> HMT
> Parnis
> Tao
> Alpha
> 
> View attachment 695239
> 
> 
> *FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)
> 
> Emporio Armani
> Calvin Klein
> Diesel
> Nixon
> Guess
> Hugo Boss
> BMW etc.


This isn't bad actually, BUT if you are going to separate Grand Seiko from Seiko, then surely you'd toss Montblanc Villeret 1858 into high-end and leave Montblanc Le Locle in premium/luxury...or Montblanc Le Locle/Villeret 1858 into high-end and leave Montblanc 4810 in premium/luxury...a change I'd think would be made regardless of the lists used. And you'd certainly put Orient Star into quality watches and leave Orient in basic. These are the types of issues developed when generalization attempts are made.


----------



## TK-421

I would move bremont up one level.



AaaVee said:


> This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
> I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
> Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.
> 
> View attachment 695234
> 
> 
> *HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)
> 
> Patek Philippe
> Vacheron Constantin
> Breguet
> A.Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Piguet
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Blancpain
> FP Journe
> Glashutte Original
> Gerald Genta
> Girard-Perregaux
> 
> View attachment 695235
> 
> 
> *HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)
> 
> Richard Mille
> Harry Winston
> MB&F
> Urwerk
> Voutilainen
> Romaine Jerome
> De Grisogono
> Habring
> Hautlence
> Konstantin Chaykin
> Sarpaneva
> Speake-Marin
> Thomas Prescher
> Gronefeld
> Devon
> 
> View attachment 695236
> 
> 
> *PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)
> 
> IWC
> Rolex
> Omega
> Ulysse Nardin
> Frank Muller
> Panerai
> Zenith
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Hublot
> Breitling
> Chopard
> Corum
> Tag Heuer
> Bell&Ross
> Nomos
> Chronoswiss
> Baume & Mercier
> Maurice Lacroix
> Perrelet
> Grand Seiko
> Linde Werdelin
> U-Boat
> Longines
> Montblanc
> 
> View attachment 695237
> 
> 
> *QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)
> 
> Rado
> Tissot
> Mido
> Hamilton
> Frederique Constant
> Oris
> Certina
> Raymond Weil
> Sinn
> Fortis
> Seiko
> Revue Thommen
> Bremont
> Stowa
> Junghans
> Movado
> Seagull
> Laco
> Archimede
> Christopher Ward
> Magrette
> Steinhart
> Lum-Tec
> Vostok-Europe
> Kemmner
> 
> View attachment 695238
> 
> 
> *BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)
> 
> Citizen
> Grovana
> TW Steel
> Jacques Lemans
> Swatch
> Skagen
> Festina
> Orient
> Lorus
> Casio
> Q&Q
> HMT
> Parnis
> Tao
> Alpha
> 
> View attachment 695239
> 
> 
> *FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)
> 
> Emporio Armani
> Calvin Klein
> Diesel
> Nixon
> Guess
> Hugo Boss
> BMW etc.


----------



## Der Biermeister

I have two candidates:

One is relatively cheap at only $33 big ones










OFFICIAL ROLEX WEBSITE - Timeless Luxury Watches

The other one -- well, might as well dream big:

Edward Piguet Tourbillon Skeleton - only $280,364.00 (not sure what the $364 is for -- maybe the strap?)


----------



## Muslickz

AaaVee said:


> This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
> I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
> Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.
> 
> View attachment 695234
> 
> 
> *HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)
> 
> Patek Philippe
> Vacheron Constantin
> Breguet
> A.Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Piguet
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Blancpain
> FP Journe
> Glashutte Original
> Gerald Genta
> Girard-Perregaux
> 
> View attachment 695235
> 
> 
> *HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)
> 
> Richard Mille
> Harry Winston
> MB&F
> Urwerk
> Voutilainen
> Romaine Jerome
> De Grisogono
> Habring
> Hautlence
> Konstantin Chaykin
> Sarpaneva
> Speake-Marin
> Thomas Prescher
> Gronefeld
> Devon
> 
> View attachment 695236
> 
> 
> *PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)
> 
> IWC
> Rolex
> Omega
> Ulysse Nardin
> Frank Muller
> Panerai
> Zenith
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Hublot
> Breitling
> Chopard
> Corum
> Tag Heuer
> Bell&Ross
> Nomos
> Chronoswiss
> Baume & Mercier
> Maurice Lacroix
> Perrelet
> Grand Seiko
> Linde Werdelin
> U-Boat
> Longines
> Montblanc
> 
> View attachment 695237
> 
> 
> *QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)
> 
> Rado
> Tissot
> Mido
> Hamilton
> Frederique Constant
> Oris
> Certina
> Raymond Weil
> Sinn
> Fortis
> Seiko
> Revue Thommen
> Bremont
> Stowa
> Junghans
> Movado
> Seagull
> Laco
> Archimede
> Christopher Ward
> Magrette
> Steinhart
> Lum-Tec
> Vostok-Europe
> Kemmner
> 
> View attachment 695238
> 
> 
> *BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)
> 
> Citizen
> Grovana
> TW Steel
> Jacques Lemans
> Swatch
> Skagen
> Festina
> Orient
> Lorus
> Casio
> Q&Q
> HMT
> Parnis
> Tao
> Alpha
> 
> View attachment 695239
> 
> 
> *FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)
> 
> Emporio Armani
> Calvin Klein
> Diesel
> Nixon
> Guess
> Hugo Boss
> BMW etc.


I can agree with this I think the sorting was done with precision lol... 

-M


----------



## Watchbreath

The Rolex, I hear the Commode God calling.


Der Biermeister said:


> I have two candidates:
> 
> One is relatively cheap at only $33 big ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OFFICIAL ROLEX WEBSITE - Timeless Luxury Watches
> 
> The other one -- well, might as well dream big:
> 
> Edward Piguet Tourbillon Skeleton - only $280,364.00 (not sure what the $364 is for -- maybe the strap?)


----------



## adswatts

http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtm


----------



## J888www

Everyone have their own opinions of what is high-end. It may be best to seek master horologists to form their opinions of what they consider to be high-end watches (not high end brands).

For people to form a list of manufacturers as high end producers is puerile as their products may consists of both ends of the scale.

My personal opinion of high end are:- Quality of material + quality of manufacture + high accuracy.

High price, high prestige, history does not equate to high end.


----------



## Cybotron

AaaVee said:


> This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
> I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
> Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.
> 
> View attachment 695234
> 
> 
> *HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)
> 
> Patek Philippe
> Vacheron Constantin
> Breguet
> A.Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Piguet
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Blancpain
> FP Journe
> Glashutte Original
> Gerald Genta
> Girard-Perregaux
> 
> View attachment 695235
> 
> 
> *HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)
> 
> Richard Mille
> Harry Winston
> MB&F
> Urwerk
> Voutilainen
> Romaine Jerome
> De Grisogono
> Habring
> Hautlence
> Konstantin Chaykin
> Sarpaneva
> Speake-Marin
> Thomas Prescher
> Gronefeld
> Devon
> 
> View attachment 695236
> 
> 
> *PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)
> 
> IWC
> Rolex
> Omega
> Ulysse Nardin
> Frank Muller
> Panerai
> Zenith
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Hublot
> Breitling
> Chopard
> Corum
> Tag Heuer
> Bell&Ross
> Nomos
> Chronoswiss
> Baume & Mercier
> Maurice Lacroix
> Perrelet
> Grand Seiko
> Linde Werdelin
> U-Boat
> Longines
> Montblanc
> 
> View attachment 695237
> 
> 
> *QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)
> 
> Rado
> Tissot
> Mido
> Hamilton
> Frederique Constant
> Oris
> Certina
> Raymond Weil
> Sinn
> Fortis
> Seiko
> Revue Thommen
> Bremont
> Stowa
> Junghans
> Movado
> Seagull
> Laco
> Archimede
> Christopher Ward
> Magrette
> Steinhart
> Lum-Tec
> Vostok-Europe
> Kemmner
> 
> View attachment 695238
> 
> 
> *BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)
> 
> Citizen
> Grovana
> TW Steel
> Jacques Lemans
> Swatch
> Skagen
> Festina
> Orient
> Lorus
> Casio
> Q&Q
> HMT
> Parnis
> Tao
> Alpha
> 
> View attachment 695239
> 
> 
> *FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)
> 
> Emporio Armani
> Calvin Klein
> Diesel
> Nixon
> Guess
> Hugo Boss
> BMW etc.


Not a bad list. Wouldn't consider Bremont entry level though.


----------



## TK-421

what is it then?



Cybotron said:


> Not a bad list. Wouldn't consider Bremont entry level though.


----------



## eliz

no offence to any of the watch brands but... how are Orient n Citizen watches in the same category as.... Parnis n Tao??


----------



## gouverneur

@AaaVee

Confused that you listed FP Journe as a high-end brand based on all factors including history, and then put Voutilanen etc. as independent contemporary makers. I thought FP Journe's founder (i.e., FP Journe) is still alive and his boutique is on the same historical footing as any other independent contemporary maker. Is there something I'm missing? Journe is not a Patek or even a A. Lange when it comes to history, right?


----------



## georges zaslavsky

AaaVee said:


> This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
> I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
> Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.
> 
> View attachment 695234
> 
> 
> *HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)
> 
> Patek Philippe
> Vacheron Constantin
> Breguet
> A.Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Piguet
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Blancpain
> FP Journe
> Glashutte Original
> Gerald Genta
> Girard-Perregaux
> 
> View attachment 695235
> 
> 
> *HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)
> 
> Richard Mille
> Harry Winston
> MB&F
> Urwerk
> Voutilainen
> Romaine Jerome
> De Grisogono
> Habring
> Hautlence
> Konstantin Chaykin
> Sarpaneva
> Speake-Marin
> Thomas Prescher
> Gronefeld
> Devon
> 
> View attachment 695236
> 
> 
> *PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)
> 
> IWC
> Rolex
> Omega
> Ulysse Nardin
> Frank Muller
> Panerai
> Zenith
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Hublot
> Breitling
> Chopard
> Corum
> Tag Heuer
> Bell&Ross
> Nomos
> Chronoswiss
> Baume & Mercier
> Maurice Lacroix
> Perrelet
> Grand Seiko
> Linde Werdelin
> U-Boat
> Longines
> Montblanc
> 
> View attachment 695237
> 
> 
> *QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)
> 
> Rado
> Tissot
> Mido
> Hamilton
> Frederique Constant
> Oris
> Certina
> Raymond Weil
> Sinn
> Fortis
> Seiko
> Revue Thommen
> Bremont
> Stowa
> Junghans
> Movado
> Seagull
> Laco
> Archimede
> Christopher Ward
> Magrette
> Steinhart
> Lum-Tec
> Vostok-Europe
> Kemmner
> 
> View attachment 695238
> 
> 
> *BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)
> 
> Citizen
> Grovana
> TW Steel
> Jacques Lemans
> Swatch
> Skagen
> Festina
> Orient
> Lorus
> Casio
> Q&Q
> HMT
> Parnis
> Tao
> Alpha
> 
> View attachment 695239
> 
> 
> *FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)
> 
> Emporio Armani
> Calvin Klein
> Diesel
> Nixon
> Guess
> Hugo Boss
> BMW etc.


agree with you on all counts


----------



## TK-421

is Bremont, Premium or Quality? what other brands would you compare it to?


----------



## georges zaslavsky

TK-421 said:


> is Bremont, Premium or Quality? what other brands would you compare it to?


I would compare Bremont to Sinn or Fortis


----------



## eliz

the categories look more like it was being conjured up heavily based on prices rather than history etc.
apart from price, I fail to comprehend how B&R is being judged to be in the same league as the likes of Rolex, Omega n Zenith?


gouverneur said:


> @AaaVee
> 
> Confused that you listed FP Journe as a high-end brand based on all factors including history, and then put Voutilanen etc. as independent contemporary makers. I thought FP Journe's founder (i.e., FP Journe) is still alive and his boutique is on the same historical footing as any other independent contemporary maker. Is there something I'm missing? Journe is not a Patek or even a A. Lange when it comes to history, right?


----------



## gouverneur

Yeah agreed. Hublot and U-Boat are watches I wouldn't buy if they cost $1,000, much less the 2-10k range they actually choose to inhabit. Aren't they both like 20 years old? Journe I can understand going for a premium just because he is a true artisan.

Nomos is great but I'd class it in a different category. It's definitely not "premium" the way Rolex is premium, it's more like a "worthy independent" or a maker that deserves the utmost respect for their design and integrity as a manufacture. But in no sense does it have the history or cultural significance of Rolex or Omega.



eliz said:


> the categories look more like it was being conjured up heavily based on prices rather than history etc.
> apart from price, I fail to comprehend how B&R is being judged to be in the same league as the likes of Rolex, Omega n Zenith?


----------



## georges zaslavsky

eliz said:


> the categories look more like it was being conjured up heavily based on prices rather than history etc.
> apart from price, I fail to comprehend how B&R is being judged to be in the same league as the likes of Rolex, Omega n Zenith?


B& R is all about marketing but aside sticking the most common eta movements in their cases, they are nothing special from a quality and an accuracy standpoint.


----------



## eliz

They just came into the market and priced their stuffs all within a premium range with a whole load of ETA movements and even the tourbillion watch that they have contains a movement being bought from else where. In NO WAY are they close to what Rolex n Omega are. well, apart from their prices.



georges zaslavsky said:


> B& R is all about marketing but aside sticking the most common eta movements in their cases, they are nothing special from a quality and an accuracy standpoint.


----------



## georges zaslavsky

eliz said:


> They just came into the market and priced their stuffs all within a premium range with a whole load of ETA movements and even the tourbillion watch that they have contains a movement being bought from else where. In NO WAY are they close to what Rolex n Omega are. well, apart from their prices.


so true


----------



## Gary123

I would not consider any Omega a high end watch. They are not in the same league as Lange, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet or even Blancpain. IWC is upper, but not high end, nor would I consider a Tag high end because it has a Zenith movement.


----------



## The1

Gary123 said:


> I would not consider any Omega a high end watch. They are not in the same league as Lange, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet or even Blancpain. IWC is upper, but not high end, nor would I consider a Tag high end because it has a Zenith movement.


A tag with a zenith movement moves it into a better quality, or did I misread your comment?

If I read correctly, then tag is by no means high end, but zenith, while not a spectacular company, will run circles around tag when it comes to quality. Maybe you meant ETA?


----------



## Watchbreath

Would you consider a watch with a central flying tourbillon high end? If so, Omega produced one. Last I heard 
they make less than 100 per year. For me, that qualifies.


Gary123 said:


> I would not consider any Omega a high end watch. They are not in the same league as Lange, Patek, Vacheron, AP, Breguet or even Blancpain. IWC is upper, but not high end, nor would I consider a Tag high end because it has a Zenith movement.


----------



## gouverneur

I guess we're discussing whether the brand as a whole is "high end," vs. any particular watch being high end. Tag Heuer makes watches that retail over 100k, as well many brands that, looking at the totality of their offerings, are not viewed as truly high end.

To me, high end means that the "entry level" to the maker is around $7,500 or more. Omega makes a lot of watches that are competing more in the mid-high range. I think the cheapest (relatively speaking!) brands that qualify as high end are probably Rolex and JLC, both of which have superb timepieces in the 7K-9K range (e.g., Datejust, Master Control/Master Thin) and then go up into the stratosphere.



Watchbreath said:


> Would you consider a watch with a central flying tourbillon high end? If so, Omega produced one. Last I heard
> they make less than 100 per year. For me, that qualifies.


----------



## Gary123

Watchbreath said:


> Would you consider a watch with a central flying tourbillon high end? If so, Omega produced one. Last I heard
> they make less than 100 per year. For me, that qualifies.


So do the Chinese. Simply making a certain type of movement, in a limited run, does not make a marque high end.

And my point about Tag is that even though they are not high end, I would agree that a Tag with a Zenith movement certainly moves into better quality, but doesn't make into "high end". Zenith is not a high end movement, although it is a very good movement.


----------



## The1

Cool, I just read your comment incorrectly on your last post, makes more sense now.


----------



## Gary123

Perhaps Credor might go into the top category, but I generally would not favor putting brand segments (Grand Seiko and Montblanc Villeret) in one list, and the rest of the brand in another. I feel that the entire brand must merit placement in a category.

Nice job AaaVee, though I am surprised you would place Gerald Genta and Girard Perrageaux in the top category, they have produced much that has been unremarkable, particularly Gerald Genta.


----------



## TK-421

i am thinking of it as a brand as a whole. doesn't invicta make some tourbillons?



gouverneur said:


> I guess we're discussing whether the brand as a whole is "high end," vs. any particular watch being high end. Tag Heuer makes watches that retail over 100k, as well many brands that, looking at the totality of their offerings, are not viewed as truly high end.
> 
> To me, high end means that the "entry level" to the maker is around $7,500 or more. Omega makes a lot of watches that are competing more in the mid-high range. I think the cheapest (relatively speaking!) brands that qualify as high end are probably Rolex and JLC, both of which have superb timepieces in the 7K-9K range (e.g., Datejust, Master Control/Master Thin) and then go up into the stratosphere.


----------



## Watchbreath

If they do, there're throwaways.


TK-421 said:


> i am thinking of it as a brand as a whole. doesn't invicta make some tourbillons?


----------



## SergeyR

I just cant see IWC, UN , Cartier , in same category as B&M ,B&R , U-boat ??? U- boat !!! 
Sorry but this list not working for me .


----------



## TK-421

you think?



Watchbreath said:


> If they do, there're throwaways.


----------



## Roller.959

SergeyR said:


> I just cant see IWC, UN , Cartier , in same category as B&M ,B&R , U-boat ??? U- boat !!!
> Sorry but this list not working for me .


The more I look at this list the more I agree with you.

That said, revisiting TK's original post, it seems the goal of this thread was to refine the definition of high end as some were posting about those "high end" Omega PO's & B&M Capelands when they belong elsewhere. I know that the original intent was brands, but maybe that is too broad a brush stroke? I mean I fail to see how this would be the incorrect forum to discuss a UN Sonata Silicum or Freak, a Piaget Polo 45, or a Montblanc Villeret. Similarly I fail to see how a GO Sport Evolution or Senator Sixties would necessarily qualify.


----------



## omega1234

TK-421 said:


> i would add Zenith to the top list. i would add Longines, Baume et Mercier, and Union Glashuette to the upper premium list.


I have a Zenith and dont think it should be in that top list, then again with UN and GO its hard to argue against Zenith being there, but we have our own forum


----------



## SwedishElite22

I am not the foremost authority on watches but to me, if you want to talk high-end on a brand level then you need to break it does as follows:

1- brand history, as others have said, what have they contributed to the art of watch making.

2 - quality, ALL of their pieces need to be made with the same level of quality when it comes to materials used, movements, etc.

3 - hand made, it is not "high-end" to program a computer to put it together, honestly. Part of #1 comes into play here and just like any other piece of jewelery a quality piece should have all components stitched together by the hands of a skilled craftsman. Just like #2 this should be all of the manufacturers pieces.

Again, I will not say I know everything about anything when it comes to watches but that's my opinion. Price does not matter one bit, to hit those three areas you will pay a pretty penny but as others charge insane amounts for rubbish pieces price is a worthless qualifier in many ways.

With all of that said the list of manufacturers who fit the bill is extremely small and truely high-end.


----------



## omega1234

SwedishElite22 said:


> I am not the foremost authority on watches but to me, if you want to talk high-end on a brand level then you need to break it does as follows:
> 
> 1- brand history, as others have said, what have they contributed to the art of watch making.
> 
> 2 - quality, ALL of their pieces need to be made with the same level of quality when it comes to materials used, movements, etc.
> 
> 3 - hand made, it is not "high-end" to program a computer to put it together, honestly. Part of #1 comes into play here and just like any other piece of jewelery a quality piece should have all components stitched together by the hands of a skilled craftsman. Just like #2 this should be all of the manufacturers pieces.
> 
> Again, I will not say I know everything about anything when it comes to watches but that's my opinion. Price does not matter one bit, to hit those three areas you will pay a pretty penny but as others charge insane amounts for rubbish pieces price is a worthless qualifier in many ways.
> 
> With all of that said the list of manufacturers who fit the bill is extremely small and truely high-end.


JLC, Patek, AP, etc. all make quartz variations of some models, should they not be considered high end.


----------



## Watchbreath

Not to some 'snob-wannabes'.


omega1234 said:


> JLC, Patek, AP, etc. all make quartz variations of some models, should they not be considered high end.


----------



## The1

I think he was just being sarcastic if reply to the previous posters comment.


----------



## SwedishElite22

omega1234 said:


> JLC, Patek, AP, etc. all make quartz variations of some models, should they not be considered high end.


Honestly, my post is with respect to the mechanical side of things.


----------



## omega1234

SwedishElite22 said:


> Honestly, my post is with respect to the mechanical side of things.


I know, and it was obvious, but you said all models, so for arguements sake I pointed out examples from premier brands that featured quartz movements. My geuss is no one on this forum will ever argue that quartz is high end.


----------



## SwedishElite22

omega1234 said:


> I know, and it was obvious, but you said all models, so for arguements sake I pointed out examples from premier brands that featured quartz movements. My geuss is no one on this forum will ever argue that quartz is high end.


My original response to you had a line where I said pretty much that, I don't consider any quartz to be high end and don't understand paying really anything over $500 or for certain over $1000 for a quartz piece.... but I deleted it to void spawning a secondary debate over HEQ and their place in the market.


----------



## omega1234

SwedishElite22 said:


> My original response to you had a line where I said pretty much that, I don't consider any quartz to be high end and don't understand paying really anything over $500 or for certain over $1000 for a quartz piece.... but I deleted it to void spawning a secondary debate over HEQ and their place in the market.


Oh if only I had found this forum before buying a quartz SMP and Breitling Aerospace, oh the money that could've been saved


----------



## SwedishElite22

omega1234 said:


> Oh if only I had found this forum before buying a quartz SMP and Breitling Aerospace, oh the money that could've been saved


I think we'd make good drinking buddies... might get into too much trouble, but it'd be fun.

At the end of the day it all comes back to what makes you happy. High end or entry level, if you love the piece then we should all be so lucky. I have a couple pieces (see sig) that many knock me for, but they hold memories and are therefore priceless.


----------



## ForzaJaymz

I don't think you can ever settle the 'what is high end' argument because it is always going to mean different things to many people.

What if for example a brand new watchmaker started up (not Swiss) and released a watch that was better made, with higher end materials, more accurate than any Swiss chronometer? Most people would not classify it as high end because it doesn't have a high end name attached.

There are many others who care only about the name on the dial. For others it's solely about what goes on inside. I've already seen others post above me that they can't imagine paying more than 500-1000 to buy a quartz. There are many others who can't understand why the watch that costs more keeps worse time. Others will simply say that it can't be high end if it isn't Swiss.

With any designer item, a huge amount of it's 'high end' perception comes purely down to who's name is on it. A watch is different because it a a functional item as well as piece of jewellery. But then again it is also confounded by the fact that a $50 quartz will still be more accurate than a $50,000 automatic, yet at the same time less 'romantic' in the eyes of the wearer.

I guess it is a bit like the difference between someone who prefers classic cars to modern cars. A classic car lover would never dream of replacing their carburettors with Electronic Fuel Injection, despite the fact that it does the same job easier, cheaper and better and doesn't lose tune. 

Like with many items, often something is high end purely because the company that makes it says its high end, and then charges accordingly. Often people decide for themselves what is high end because of what a certain brand means to them. For example, how many Seamasters do you think Omega has sold (and at what increased price) based purely because they drove a dumptruck full of money to the front doors of UA and MGM studios? 

I guess a lot of it depends who you are tying to impress the most. Yourself? Other watch enthusiasts? The average person you meet? Or that girl at the bar?


----------



## dark_divine1218

for me its Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex and still Rolex.


----------



## amine

dark_divine1218 said:


> for me its Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex and still Rolex.


----------



## Dancing Fire

dark_divine1218 said:


> for me its Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex Rolex and still Rolex.


LOL!!


----------



## bydandie

Cybotron said:


> Not a bad list. Wouldn't consider Bremont entry level though.


Wholly agree, why would B&R, U-Boat, TAG and Longines be above Bremont?


----------



## bydandie

georges zaslavsky said:


> I would compare Bremont to Sinn or Fortis


:lol: :lol: Fortis?????


----------



## bydandie

TK-421 said:


> is Bremont, Premium or Quality? what other brands would you compare it to?


Premium, I'd compare it to what Breitling and IWC _were _doing, which is fair seeing as their TD is former IWC and was asked by both TAG and Breitling to review their 'in-house' movements in QP magazine. I'd be surprised to see B&R, TAG and U-Boat in the Premium range as well (TAG maybe less so).


----------



## sa-ora

So would U-Boat be considered more high end or luxury?

I ask because I love their designs and intend to purchase one soon but they don't seem to be sold by many UK shops and I haven't seen many reviews around.


----------



## Watchbreath

One thing for sure, it doesn't belong here.


sa-ora said:


> So would U-Boat be considered more high end or luxury?
> 
> I ask because I love their designs and intend to purchase one soon but they don't seem to be sold by many UK shops and I haven't seen many reviews around.


----------



## TK-421

what about omega?



Watchbreath said:


> One thing for sure, it doesn't belong here.


----------



## Watchbreath

Go back and reread post #2.


TK-421 said:


> what about omega?


----------



## TK-421

that was a long time ago. you could have just said yes and saved me the trouble.



Watchbreath said:


> Go back and reread post #2.


----------



## amine

gouverneur said:


> I guess we're discussing whether the brand as a whole is "high end," vs. any particular watch being high end. .





TK-421 said:


> i am thinking of it as a brand as a whole.





Gary123 said:


> Simply making a certain type of movement, in a limited run, does not make a marque high end.


That sums up it up for me! I understood we're talking "High end *BRANDS*" not "High end *TIMEPIECES*" so in this case AP, PP, VC, Lange, Breguet, Blancpain...and few independents (i.e: Mille, Voutilainen, Journe...) qualify. Of course that's just my 0.02$ and i'm happy with it.
Cheers!


----------



## TK-421

what about Carl F. Bucherer? would you consider this high end? i really like their watches quite a bit. does anyone know if their movements are ALL in-house? or just some of them in-house? these watches use movement CFB 1964. any knowledge of their watches by any owners would be appreciated.


----------



## amine

TK-421 said:


> what about Carl F. Bucherer? would you consider this high end? i really like their watches quite a bit. does anyone know if their movements are ALL in-house? or just some of them in-house? these watches use movement CFB 1964. any knowledge of their watches by any owners would be appreciated.


Not to me, a few years ago (2007) i liked one of their models called Patravi Traveltec and was ready to pull the trigger on it, then changed my mind and bought JLC master world geographic instead. CFB brand history and movements etc...seem too enigmatic to me, when you go on their website and try to look for some informations you'd be disappointed by the short paragraphs, like we say in French " Je reste sur ma faim". No much information given to the customers in terms of movement (100% manufacture or modified or whatsoever) nor in terms of history of the brand through time (a 3 short paragraphs) so to me i'd be on a thin ice to drop 6~10 k on a timepiece that doesn't say much about itself, its history is too obscure to my liking. Just my opinion!
Here's a link to their website that you might want to check out:

Movement - Carl F. Bucherer

History.
*Entrepreneurs are individuals who have an idea and dare to do something new; individuals who follow their vision and go their own way, like Carl Friedrich Bucherer. With his passion for watchmaking and his creative energy, Carl Friedrich Bucherer founded his company in Lucerne, Switzerland in 1888, which is still entirely family-owned today.*
*The founder's philosophy continues to characterize the Carl F. Bucherer brand and its timepieces today. As the only watch brand to call the heart of Switzerland its home, Carl F. Bucherer was able to follow a wholly independent path of development and will continue to design the future according to its own visions and always keep a step ahead of the time.*
Seriously? bla bla blabla bla that's all what it means to me, these sentences could be applied to any new brand in the market that pretends to be swiss made but uses components from anywhere else, even Invicta can do a better essay than this


----------



## TK-421

good points. i have had trouble finding information about their movements. i sent a message to them, we'll see what they say. how do the watches look in person?



amine said:


> Not to me, a few years ago (2007) i liked one of their models called Patravi Traveltec and was ready to pull the trigger on it, then changed my mind and bought JLC master world geographic instead. CFB brand history and movements etc...seem too enigmatic to me, when you go on their website and try to look for some informations you'd be disappointed by the short paragraphs, like we say in French " Je reste sur ma faim". No much information given to the customers in terms of movement (100% manufacture or modified or whatsoever) nor in terms of history of the brand through time (a 3 short paragraphs) so to me i'd be on a thin ice to drop 6~10 k on a timepiece that doesn't say much about itself, its history is too obscure to my liking. Just my opinion!
> Here's a link to their website that you might want to check out:
> 
> Movement - Carl F. Bucherer
> 
> *History.*
> 
> *Entrepreneurs are individuals who have an idea and dare to do something new; individuals who follow their vision and go their own way, like Carl Friedrich Bucherer. With his passion for watchmaking and his creative energy, Carl Friedrich Bucherer founded his company in Lucerne, Switzerland in 1888, which is still entirely family-owned today.*
> *The founder's philosophy continues to characterize the Carl F. Bucherer brand and its timepieces today. As the only watch brand to call the heart of Switzerland its home, Carl F. Bucherer was able to follow a wholly independent path of development and will continue to design the future according to its own visions and always keep a step ahead of the time.*
> Seriously? bla bla blabla bla that's all what it means to me, these sentences could be applied to any new brand in the market that pretends to be swiss made but uses components from anywhere else, even Invicta can do a better essay than this


----------



## Vettn71

New to the forum, new to this sub forum and pretty new to watch collecting. This thread has been very entertaining and informative. It is difficult to assess general opinion fromm few responses. Reading through all 20 (where's the Advil?) threads has given me a better sense of the lay of the land. I own watches from most segments listed, starting with an ESQ, Movado, Tag, Brietling and just last evening agreed to purchase a JLC. I agree with the listing posted lastly (dont remember what thread it was in, but I like the way it was broken down into new subgroups). As far as this forum, I think a watch owner should go to his specific watch brand sub forum first, and if they do not receive an answer that is suitable, try this subforum. That seems to have been the. Initial intent. I plan to become involved in the JLC subforum with occasional posts to this one. I'll post pictures of my JLC when I receive it.


----------



## TK-421

i just went on wikipedia and carl f. bucherer is not even on there. i like amine's point about them not giving much information on their website. you think that someone from the company would put info on wikipedia regarding the company.


----------



## TK-421

does anyone else consider Carl F. Bucherer high-end?


----------



## Monocrom

TK-421 said:


> does anyone else consider Carl F. Bucherer high-end?


Luxury? Yes.

High-end? No.

Prices and use of ETA movements puts it into the luxury class, instead of high-end.


----------



## TK-421

what about their own in-house movement watch line? also, they add their own chrono functions to many ETA movements instead of buying premade. look at their patravi movements and tell me what you think. watch the video.

Manufacture Movement CFB A1000 - Carl F. Bucherer



Monocrom said:


> Luxury? Yes.
> 
> High-end? No.
> 
> Prices and use of ETA movements puts it into the luxury class, instead of high-end.


----------



## Virt

Great thread 

Sort of new here, getting a collection together and this discussion is definitely an interesting one. I think sorting brands into buckets is a simple task, just ask some binary questions and see where the brands fall. However, the sticky part seems to be that people answer the questions differently, which changes which bucket each brand falls into. Over the course of this thread, the I definitely think the evolution of the list has been a positive one.

My own 2 cents:

While sorting the brands, you must consider the brand as a whole, like considering a dataset. Having a one ( or several ) flyaway data point ( Invicta makes a Tourbillion, etc ) shouldn't change where the primary set lies. ( Toyota can make a car that competes at the Le Mans, but no-one should consider them a sports car company ).

By the same logic on the other spectrum end, AP can make some quartz watches, but it's not proof they should have their status lowered.

I think separating "Hi-End" from "Hi-Tech/Independent" is a great idea, but the "Premium" bucket is too large, and should probably be split into 2 or 3 tiers.

P.S. I'd also put Roger Dubuis into the Hi-End category, as it satisfies all the requirements ( except maybe the history part...? )


----------



## WUSWIS

TK-421 said:


> does anyone else consider Carl F. Bucherer high-end?


Not High End. The calibre (no pun intended) is just not there.


----------



## Watchbreath

What does calibre have to do with it, Thomas Prescher is high end and uses mostly 2824s?


WUSWIS said:


> Not High End. The calibre (no pun intended) is just not there.


----------



## Ashgard

Happen to me too. Almost pull a trigger on CFB, but end up with Lange and never regret ever since.



amine said:


> Not to me, a few years ago (2007) i liked one of their models called Patravi Traveltec and was ready to pull the trigger on it, then changed my mind and bought JLC master world geographic instead. CFB brand history and movements etc...seem too enigmatic to me, when you go on their website and try to look for some informations you'd be disappointed by the short paragraphs, like we say in French " Je reste sur ma faim". No much information given to the customers in terms of movement (100% manufacture or modified or whatsoever) nor in terms of history of the brand through time (a 3 short paragraphs) so to me i'd be on a thin ice to drop 6~10 k on a timepiece that doesn't say much about itself, its history is too obscure to my liking. Just my opinion!
> Here's a link to their website that you might want to check out:
> 
> Movement - Carl F. Bucherer
> 
> *History.*
> 
> *Entrepreneurs are individuals who have an idea and dare to do something new; individuals who follow their vision and go their own way, like Carl Friedrich Bucherer. With his passion for watchmaking and his creative energy, Carl Friedrich Bucherer founded his company in Lucerne, Switzerland in 1888, which is still entirely family-owned today.*
> *The founder's philosophy continues to characterize the Carl F. Bucherer brand and its timepieces today. As the only watch brand to call the heart of Switzerland its home, Carl F. Bucherer was able to follow a wholly independent path of development and will continue to design the future according to its own visions and always keep a step ahead of the time.*
> Seriously? bla bla blabla bla that's all what it means to me, these sentences could be applied to any new brand in the market that pretends to be swiss made but uses components from anywhere else, even Invicta can do a better essay than this


----------



## WUSWIS

Watchbreath said:


> What does calibre have to do with it, Thomas Prescher is high end and uses mostly 2824s?


As I said, I did not intend it to be a pun. Calibre as in quality of offering is not up there with high end brands.


----------



## StraitUpSuburbanite

IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, Jaeger, etc. I consider that High-End. Audemars, Vacheron, Patek, A. Lange, Blancpain, Breguet, Cyclos, Piaget, Parmigiani, F.P. Journe and those names I consider Luxury.


----------



## Dixan

StraitUpSuburbanite said:


> IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, Jaeger, etc. I consider that High-End. Audemars, Vacheron, Patek, A. Lange, Blancpain, Breguet, Cyclos, Piaget, Parmigiani, F.P. Journe and those names I consider Luxury.


Uh..., okay.

:roll:

Again with the undervaluation of JLC by a new member. Is there some serious misinformation going around out there right now, or what? So strange....

Dude, look up JLC Grande Sonnerie. (EDIT: Here you go: http://www.ablogtoread.com/jaeger-lecoultre-hybris-mechanica-grande-sonnerie-thoughts-on-the-most-complicated-watch-in-the-world/) It retailed at a mere $2,500,000.00 USD. If that's not "luxury," I don't know what is. And beyond the _haute horlogerie,_ their more mainstream pieces are nothing if not world class, in every regard.


----------



## mleok

StraitUpSuburbanite said:


> IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, Jaeger, etc. I consider that High-End. Audemars, Vacheron, Patek, A. Lange, Blancpain, Breguet, Cyclos, Piaget, Parmigiani, F.P. Journe and those names I consider Luxury.


What the heck is a Cyclos, and why would you consider it to be a superior brand to JLC? Also, by which reasonable metric is an IWC or a Nomos (!) comparable to a JLC?


----------



## Dancing Fire

StraitUpSuburbanite said:


> IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, Jaeger, etc. I consider that High-End. Audemars, Vacheron, Patek, A. Lange, Blancpain, Breguet, Cyclos, Piaget, Parmigiani, F.P. Journe and those names I consider Luxury.


this post must be a joke!!


----------



## Monocrom

There are folks out there who think Invicta is high-end.


----------



## tigerpac

There are... what's the word for them? ...oh right, wrong!



Monocrom said:


> There are folks out there who think Invicta is high-end.


----------



## Monocrom

tigerpac said:


> There are... what's the word for them? ...oh right, wrong!


Another word for them . . . The General Buying Public.

ShopNBC is effective, that's for sure.


----------



## Atoning Unifex

amine said:


> ......like we say in French " Je reste sur ma faim"....


"I'm staying on my hunger"?:think:


----------



## Atoning Unifex

StraitUpSuburbanite said:


> IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, Jaeger, etc. I consider that High-End. Audemars, Vacheron, Patek, A. Lange, Blancpain, Breguet, Cyclos, Piaget, Parmigiani, F.P. Journe and those names I consider Luxury.


Troll.


----------



## Monocrom

Atoning Unifex said:


> "I'm staying on my hunger"?:think:


Maybe, "I'm staying hungry."

Something was lost in translation.


----------



## TK-421

Invicta will not be high end for several more years.


----------



## Atoning Unifex

Monocrom said:


> Maybe, "I'm staying hungry."
> 
> Something was lost in translation.


Something sure was.


----------



## Mister O

StraitUpSuburbanite said:


> IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, Jaeger, etc. I consider that High-End. Audemars, Vacheron, Patek, A. Lange, Blancpain, Breguet, Cyclos, Piaget, Parmigiani, F.P. Journe and those names I consider Luxury.


I'm new to horology and joined today. Even I know that IWC, Omega, Rolex, Nomos, etc are not high end as Patek, A. Lange, etc. This is coming from a Rolex owner no less! This thread has been informative for a newbie like myself even though the debate has been ongoing between all the watch companies. Thank you all for posting and providing some enlightenment on this subject.


----------



## leirex

*Your Definidtion Of High-end Watches*

This topic might have been discussed before somewhere, maybe extensively. I have recently got hooked on mechanical watches and wonder what you watch aficionados think high-end watches are. I know this is sort of a broad question but think each one of you should have your own set standards. It could be a brand name (overall fame) or a price range or both as a lot of brand names have products in tiered price ranges. Some might sort out by in-house movement.

For me, it is majorly determined by the prices (set by maker and demand). Generally, I believe MSRP reflects overall quality with some exceptions. Some makers inflate MSRP with heavy discounts.

Some might argue that they go for in-house movement. Personally, I do not get too crazy about in-house movements except some legendary watch makers which started their own movements and still exist from their inception. Other than those few, I would say most claimed in-house movements are somewhat based on legendary ETA. I might be wrong but think so. I see some makers started inflating (a lot) their prices starting from time when they said they developed their own movements. One typical example is Panerai. Even Rolex now uses their own movements which are considered inferior to legendary Zenith movements they used to use. Again, personally, I do not see any advantage of the in-house movements over ubiquitous ETA movements. I do not know about reliability but can say that ETA movements (modified/fortified ETA movement) are more accurate than some in-house movements. For example, all my Ball, Dubey & Schanldenbrand, Anonimo, BRM watches with ETA or modified ETA movements are more accurate than my Maurice Lacroix Masterpiece watches with in-house movements.

I would put more weight to build material and quality than the in-house movements. I would say MSRP and street prices by demand definitely show their build material/quality.

So, all in all, I consider all the major brand names (Anonimo to Zenith) over say $7000 MSRP (or $2000 street) high-end watches. By the way, my favorites are Ball TMT watches, Anonimo 2007 Crono, Dubey & Schaldenbrand Sprial One/Sixty, BRM Hexagonal Titanium Carbon Fiber Racer and Wyler El Camino Code R Ceramic. I like my Maurice Lacroix Masterpiece Reveil Globe too but see it not up to the others in accuracy.


----------



## Roller.959

*Re: Your Definidtion Of High-end Watches*

Come on! 
Half way down the high-end forum topics...
Forty two pages worth of argument...
You don't even have to use the search function...

Warning...you will find little consensus.

EDIT: Actually this is covered twice on the High-End Forum cover page...


----------



## tigerpac

*Re: Your Definidtion Of High-end Watches*

Search is your friend! Why would you be so mean to ignore him like that?!


----------



## amine

*Re: Your Definidtion Of High-end Watches*

thread merged!


----------



## westlake

TK-421 said:


> Invicta will not be high end for several more years.


Huh?
Maybe high-end of ShopNBC.


----------



## hydrocarbon

*Re: Your Definidtion Of High-end Watches*



leirex said:


> [...] Personally, I do not get too crazy about in-house movements except some legendary watch makers which started their own movements and still exist from their inception. Other than those few, I would say most claimed in-house movements are somewhat based on legendary ETA. I might be wrong but think so. I see some makers started inflating (a lot) their prices starting from time when they said they developed their own movements. One typical example is Panerai. Even Rolex now uses their own movements which are considered inferior to legendary Zenith movements they used to use. [...]


Let's just say that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: Your Definidtion Of High-end Watches*

The Internet . . . Good for only two things . . . Horrible misinformation . . . And something somewhat less obscene. ;-)


----------



## slcbbrown

Tyrtle said:


> Actually, that statement sums up this entire industry. Mechanical watches sank into obscurity to the point that even the most revered Swiss mechanical watchmakers (*cough* Patek *cough*) felt they had to sell quartz watches.
> 
> If you look closely enough, all brands have sketchy periods in their past- its just comes down to shades of gray. But I think a brand's watches should be judge based on their merits, today. Hence, Breguet, Blancpain, and Zenith make very nice high end watches.
> 
> Also, someone complained about Maurice Lacroix earlier. But anyone that takes a look at their manufacture based Masterpieces would be hard pressed to claim they do not qualify as high end without resorting to marketing department justifications:
> 
> Maurice Lacroix Masterpiece Le Chronographe 18 kt. Rotgold Lim... for $.18,924 for sale from a Trusted Seller on Chrono24
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> Maurice Lacroix Memoire 1 Watch | LUXUO Luxury Blog
> 
> Which just shows why watches need to be judged on their merits, not their hangtags (although I grant that the hangtags on those MLs make some Breguets look like cheap).


Absolutely agree with the points about ML. The ML Masterpiece line, in particular, is first rate. I'm hard pressed to name another brand that offers unique or unusual complications for such a "reasonable" price.


----------



## mravery

I'm surprised that girard perregaux has not been mentioned more in this thread. They are an old company, have in house movements and fix and finish are superb. I would put them in the top end category.


----------



## tigerpac

I agree that most would as well, including myself. But they make some beautiful watches and some ugly, ugly watches!



mravery said:


> I'm surprised that girard perregaux has not been mentioned more in this thread. They are an old company, have in house movements and fix and finish are superb. I would put them in the top end category.


----------



## mravery

tigerpac said:


> I agree that most would as well, including myself. But they make some beautiful watches and some ugly, ugly watches!


New line-up is pretty cool (considering I have some of them ) :-d


----------



## omega1234

Wrong thread, sorry.


----------



## dominiceasthope

Rolex, Omega, Tags, Cartier.


----------



## Watchbreath

Well, TAG for one could be left off.


dominiceasthope said:


> Rolex, Omega, Tags, Cartier.


----------



## Monocrom

A good case could be made for leaving Omega off that list as well. Definitely luxury. But high-end is still debatable.


----------



## Dancing Fire

dominiceasthope said:


> Rolex, Omega, Tags, Cartier.


are these on your *do not belong list*?


----------



## mravery

Dancing Fire said:


> are these on your *do not belong list*?


I would say 'yes'.. off the high end list


----------



## darwinhigh

People in this thread are trying to decide which watches are high end before defining what high end means, a true opportunity for pointless argument.

I figure we have

1. High End - Expensive

2. High End - Rare/Unique

3. High End - Technically

4. High End - Quality

Almost all the brands talked about in this thread as high end fall into one of the 4 types, with many into two or more.

Perhaps it complicates it to have a watch thats from a manufacturer who meets none of the 4 but makes one model which meets all 4.

In addition this is a knowlegeable persons assesment, if one was to ask the average man in the street any watch over 1k would be high end !


----------



## MAJIDN

Can you tell Me where does JEANRICHARD fit in. They are part Of Sowind and Gp and they do have inhouse movements


----------



## Tick Talk

To prove how subjective and unresolvable the OP's question really is, I bet we can keep this thread going for another year! How long can a dog chase it's tail? Anyway, not to be accused of a drive-by fruiting, I'd like to wish everyone a happy holiday season and may you find peace with your choices


----------



## Watchbreath

Hit the 'search function', DJR has been discussed a lot.


MAJIDN said:


> Can you tell Me where does JEANRICHARD fit in. They are part Of Sowind and Gp and they do have inhouse movements


----------



## TK-421

subjective? hardly. i liken it to the hall of fame question. ask someone if a certain athlete belongs in the hall of fame and it is quite obvious. if it debatable, then they are not hall of fame material.



Tick Talk said:


> To prove how subjective and unresolvable the OP's question really is, I bet we can keep this thread going for another year! How long can a dog chase it's tail? Anyway, not to be accused of a drive-by fruiting, I'd like to wish everyone a happy holiday season and may you find peace with your choices


----------



## Dancing Fire

darwinhigh said:


> .
> 
> In addition this is a knowlegeable persons assesment, *if one was to ask the average man in the street any watch over 1k would be high end !*


b/c the avg Joe on the street knows diddy about watches...:roll:


----------



## Watchbreath

I've meet a few Joe 'Bag of Donuts' who did.


Dancing Fire said:


> b/c the avg Joe on the street knows diddy about watches...:roll:


----------



## johnperregaux

If you can follow this train of thought, all aboard!:

First we must examine the term high-end and the underlying meaning. 

According to Webster, High-end = "Upscale" or "of superior quality or sophistication and usually high in price".

Next we must examine "upscale". Upscale = relating to, being, or appealing to affluent customers.

The definition of "affluent" is having a great deal of money. 

So far we have determined that the "upscale" meaning of "high-end" is that it costs a great deal of money. 

On to the next part..."Superior quality". Superior by definition = "situated higher up".
Sophistication = "becoming more complex or developed".


**RESULTS**

We have found, based on the above definitions and logic that a high end watch must :

-appeal to people with a great deal of money

AND/OR

- Unquestioned higher regarded watch quality and workmanship than most others

AND/OR

-Includes complications or is more developed functionally than most others

Finally, a high-end watch SHOULD be High end in price. 


I hope I could help to break this down for you guys.

Thanks!

J


----------



## Burntorangefan

Okay, very new to horologie and only recently made my first "big boy" watch purchase - a JLC Master Compressor Memovox - after much research and consideration as to when and how often I'd wear it. My question vis a vis this thread is that I'm curious where the main contributors view Linde Werdelin? I've seen them mentioned in passing, but not specifically addressed...I love the detail in the cases and I'm considering one for a primary sport watch...appreciate your thoughts...


----------



## Crunchy

I propose a price cut off. Keep it simple... $10k.

Anyone who thinks $10k is not high end enough is in the very small minority.


----------



## mravery

Crunchy said:


> I propose a price cut off. Keep it simple... $10k.
> 
> Anyone who thinks $10k is not high end enough is in the very small minority.


Crunchy,

You may want to re-think this...... are you talking new or used......are you talking real world prices or MSRP?

A new Rolex, under $10k is limited to like... maybe one model (Have not priced them in a while) and they are really not in the top tier for 'high end'

I think you would be better off going $15k-$20k is you want a baseline.

Just my two cents.


----------



## TK-421

there are breguet, zenith and jlc under 10K.



mravery said:


> Crunchy,
> 
> You may want to re-think this...... are you talking new or used......are you talking real world prices or MSRP?
> 
> A new Rolex, under $10k is limited to like... maybe one model (Have not priced them in a while) and they are really not in the top tier for 'high end'
> 
> I think you would be better off going $15k-$20k is you want a baseline.
> 
> Just my two cents.


----------



## Crunchy

Check out swatch group's own classification.

http://www.swatchgroup.com/en/brands_and_companies/watches_and_jewelry/prestige_and_luxury_range

Even omega is a "prestige brand." Owning a prestige brand in the omega world is like flying first/biz class. You get real priviledges such as jumping the queues in services centers and basically better service.

$10k would be higher priced than most basic omega models, but lesser than their more higher end gold pieces. $15k-20k will be too high, resulting in a very quiet forum for say 200 people.

Some companies like IWC produce a range. From basic models to super high end grand complications. Having a price cut off will take care of that.

With regards to breguet, JLC etc having pieces less than $10k, most of their collection is above $10k, so it will take care of that as well.

There is probably no "correct" number to balance between so many different factors. Using a round number like 10k is also easier to remember and nicer to say.

Of course I'm talking about MSRP as it is the only non-arbitrary pricing benchmark, effectively providing watches that cost 20-30% under 10k in street prices entry into the high end forum.


----------



## Monocrom

Sorry, but price-tag often times has very little to do with actual quality. There are plenty of watches from recognized High-End brands that do indeed cost less than $10,000. While there are also plenty of vomit-inducing monstrosities that go far north of six figures. Doesn't make those watches High-End. Just makes their owners clueless and tasteless.


----------



## iim7v7im7

18-months long, 9-pages and 446 posts later the conversation continues...

If one thinks that they will get an answer to a posted question or elicit a conversation on a subject that they are interested in and that this forum will provide a better vehicle, by all means post it here. Sometimes you will be right and some times you will be wrong. I view forums not so much by the watches or watch brands that are discussed but more by the knowledge of those who regularly participate and the likelihood of my desired result. I have posted duplicate postings both here and the Public forum. You would be amazed at the differences in the answers.

My $.02


----------



## tigerpac

I can't believe this one is still going too.

Some random thoughts - 

1. This is the 'high-end watch' forum, not the high-end brand forum 

2. It's really all in the eye of the beholder, if you don't think a certain watch is worthy, then don't read the thread.

3. Does the $$ cutoffs proposed include tax? Because then certain watches would be considered high-end in some jurisdictions and not others?


----------



## heuerolexomega

I guess it's just an effort to have some parameters. I like the idea of having clear objective guidelines so there is no way to confusion. Unfortunately it's no possible when the issue in question is "subjective". This is like trying to apply objective rules to something that is essentially a subjective call. 
Believe me If I can come with something close (approximation to such parameters) that can work, I'll post it.
In the meantime this will have to do.:-(


----------



## Crunchy

I believe a parameter needs to be decided since this forum gets very quiet (doesn't matter what it is). That revue thommen thread which was moved is a good example of having parameters that will help the forum instead of arbitrary.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Crunchy said:


> I believe a parameter needs to be decided since this forum gets very quiet (doesn't matter what it is). That revue thommen thread which was moved is a good example of having parameters that will help the forum instead of arbitrary.


Agree, but brand or retail prices don't give us a clear cut then I am clueless on what other parameters can be used?:-s 
The only 6 brands that everybody would agree are definitely high-end are: PP,AP,VC,Breguet,ALS and JLC. And even on those 6 that to me it shouldn't be an argument IMHO, I might get replies saying I am wrong:-s
Can't win ah.. o|


----------



## payj

Grand Seiko?


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 Using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Watchbreath

Gotta find some Silver bullets for this thread.


----------



## bosjohn

Some one somewhere published his criteria which if memory serves goes something like this. Hand assembled and finished, small annual output measured in the under ten thousand pieces a year. A movement with a real pedigree and significant innovative contributions to horological aims. Long history and present management or owner ship still in the family. Recognizable high quality workmanship by the finest watch makers in the country. There were a couple others which I don't remember, but the advantage of this system is it will not preclude high end watches from companies which make watches in several price ranges but will weed out several watches which are really mass produced such as your average rollex or average seiko, both these companies however make watches that should be included in your high end watch group. 
Brand name chauvinism is alive and well and I have no axe to grind with those who will only wear a recognized high end brand name but for we watch lovers I think we should avoid this. A grand seiko is still a high end watch even if it says seiko on the dial. In every respect it fits the category. There are others as well. If we are interested in high end watches lets not wear blinders and lets find the best we can out there. Of course there are many independent watch makers making suburb pieces which also get lost it the rhetoric. 
A high end watch then is simple. Its a watch that approaches the limits or stretches the limits of horological knowledge and present fit finish and materials which are demonstrably better than the also rans.
John aka bosjohn


----------



## Monocrom

Watchbreath said:


> Gotta find some Silver bullets for this thread.


For _this_ thread . . . Better make those bullets out of platinum.


----------



## agong

Crunchy said:


> I propose a price cut off. Keep it simple... $10k.
> 
> Anyone who thinks $10k is not high end enough is in the very small minority.


Watch prices could be jacked up due to rare pieces with lots of gold and diamonds while having a simple battery quartz movement.

I would choose to consider a simple zenith elite or jlc ultra slim as a higher end piece than a watch packed with precious metal that is only worth its weigh of gold.


----------



## Dancing Fire

Crunchy said:


> I propose a price cut off. Keep it simple... $10k.
> 
> Anyone who thinks $10k is not high end enough is in the very small minority.


so my $10K Invicta is a high end watch?


----------



## The1

According to recent replies, yes. 

Setting a simple number for something such as this is too simple a solution.

there are plenty of Panerai watches that eclipse the 10k mark, and I wouldn't consider them high end end compared to most of the others.

for example, take one of their simple watches, and slap titanium on it. The difference in type of metal shouldn't be enough to Pitt it over into "high end" as we are suggesting. It's an expensive tool watch.

before any panerai lovers draw issue with my comment, I do own a panerai. It is not a precision instrument. (And yes, I realize they make a tourbillon even)


----------



## Watchbreath

Also to currency debasement.


agong said:


> Watch prices could be jacked up due to rare pieces with lots of gold and diamonds while having a simple battery quartz movement.
> 
> I would choose to consider a simple zenith elite or jlc ultra slim as a higher end piece than a watch packed with precious metal that is only worth its weigh of gold.


----------



## shnjb

There is a limited edition Dior with diamonds that someone close to me bought for above $10K.

According to these replies, her watch is "high-end" although most here will find it offensive.


----------



## Dancing Fire

shnjb said:


> There is a limited edition Dior with diamonds *that someone close to me bought for above $10K*.
> 
> According to these replies, her watch is "high-end" although *most here will find it offensive*.


more like foolishness...o|


----------



## Lemper

Put diamonds on everything and it will be high-end.


----------



## shnjb

Dancing Fire said:


> more like foolishness...o|


The person in question is a woman.

It's not so unreasonable now is it?


----------



## tigerpac

...still unreasonable.


----------



## The1

Value of diamonds on a watch is like 250-500$ at best. 

Diamonds add no real value to a watch. But retailers cash in on them.

diamonds are one of the least resaleable of precious metals and stones to come out of the earth due to good marketing and etc.

if you like diamonds on a watch, go ahead and get them, if you don't like them, don't get them as they will not increase the value of a product beyond a few dollars.


----------



## shnjb

Did anyone in the thread say that they like diamonds on their watches?



The1 said:


> Value of diamonds on a watch is like 250-500$ at best.
> 
> Diamonds add no real value to a watch. But retailers cash in on them.
> 
> diamonds are one of the least resaleable of precious metals and stones to come out of the earth due to good marketing and etc.
> 
> if you like diamonds on a watch, go ahead and get them, if you don't like them, don't get them as they will not increase the value of a product beyond a few dollars.


----------



## The1

shnjb said:


> Did anyone in the thread say that they like diamonds on their watches?


Was a general response to the comments regarding recent posts on topic. was not directed at anyone specifically. :-!


----------



## Dancing Fire

shnjb said:


> The person in question is a woman.
> 
> It's not so unreasonable now is it?


still does not make her watch high end.


----------



## AmbSteve

heuerolexomega said:


> Agree, but brand or retail prices don't give us a clear cut then I am clueless on what other parameters can be used?:-s
> The only 6 brands that everybody would agree are definitely high-end are: PP,AP,VC,Breguet,ALS and JLC. And even on those 6 that to me it shouldn't be an argument IMHO, I might get replies saying I am wrong:-s
> Can't win ah.. o|


Heh-heh, anyone who would say any one of those brands isn't high end (high luxury) is someone who doesn't know timepieces.

Chronocentric


----------



## tigerpac

That chronocentric page just won't die will it?

Prices are way off but some nice concepts in there (as has been said on here 10k times)


----------



## TK-421

the faunt makes it look like a radical religious site at first glance.



tigerpac said:


> That chronocentric page just won't die will it?
> 
> Prices are way off but some nice concepts in there (as has been said on here 10k times)


----------



## Sassicaia

After reading a large majority of this thread I have come to realize that _most_ of the posts are from people saying 1.)I think brand/watch "x" is high end purely because they own that watch and want it to be considered that way, Or 2.)Do you think Brand/Watch "x" is considered high end purely because they hope someone will say yes and help validate their piece. There are certainly a lot of people that want their watch to be high end without spending the necessary amount to get there. While not every costly watch is high end every high end watch is costly. IMO if you didnt spend 15k+ on your watch then there is no reason to even ask if its high end.

To me there are only 5 brands that as a whole are considered high end because every piece they make fits that bill: PP, VC, AP, Lang and BD. Every other brand out there makes either no high end, or a few (or sometimes just one) high end watches.

So this forum fits for any PP, VC, AP, Lang and BD, but no other complete brand. Only select watches. If your watch wasn't from one of the latter brands and you want to ask if its "high end" IMO you can save yourself a post if you didnt spend 15k+ on it.

Might rub some people the wrong way, but the high end line needs to be drawn on an objective not subject ground.

Perhaps this forum would hold more integrity as "15k plus watches" ? It would certainly limit the debate, and at the very least help keep this section less diluted. :-d


----------



## Monocrom

Sassicaia said:


> After reading a large majority of this thread I have come to realize that _most_ of the posts are from people saying 1.)I think brand/watch "x" is high end purely because they own that watch and want it to be considered that way, Or 2.)Do you think Brand/Watch "x" is considered high end purely because they hope someone will say yes and help validate their piece. There are certainly a lot of people that want their watch to be high end without spending the necessary amount to get there. While not every costly watch is high end every high end watch is costly. IMO if you didnt spend 15k+ on your watch then there is no reason to even ask if its high end.


Several respected members have already demonstrated that a truly high-end watch can be had below $15,000. Have demonstrated that a big sticker price slapped on a watch doesn't automatically mean that said timepiece is actually high-end. But if one chooses to ignore that fact and throw their money away in the mistaken belief that that is the only way to get a high-end watch, oh well . . . That's their decision.


----------



## Sassicaia

Monocrom said:


> Several respected members have already demonstrated that a truly high-end watch can be had below $15,000. Have demonstrated that a big sticker price slapped on a watch doesn't automatically mean that said timepiece is actually high-end. But if one chooses to ignore that fact and throw their money away in the mistaken belief that that is the only way to get a high-end watch, oh well . . . That's their decision.


Just because there are acceptions to the rule doesnt mean the rule isnt true. If you re-read the verbiage of my post I said "While not every costly watch is high end every high end watch is costly." and that setting a price limit of 15k would hold "more" integrity and "help keep the forum less dilute".

Im not talking about the very few one offs, and im sorry but in every industry "high end" is largely associated with price. Again its not a fail safe, and there will be exceptions like the ones you are referring to, but based on what I see people as asking about being high end putting a min price would certainly help clean things up....assuming the purpose of this thread is to do so. If there are no objective baselines people will self proclaim their choice as high end, and this forum will be as it is: High end diluted with non high end.

Not that it matters much, because all it means to me is skipping 50% of the thread tittles here when wanting to read topics on actual high end watches.


----------



## shnjb

Why not use the 15000 as a suggestive guideline rather than a rule?


----------



## fareastcoast

What the hell is BD? If I don't recognize the initials, it's not high end.


----------



## The1

Sassicaia said:


> After reading a large majority of this thread I have come to realize that _most_ of the posts are from people saying 1.)I think brand/watch "x" is high end purely because they own that watch and want it to be considered that way, Or 2.)Do you think Brand/Watch "x" is considered high end purely because they hope someone will say yes and help validate their piece. There are certainly a lot of people that want their watch to be high end without spending the necessary amount to get there. While not every costly watch is high end every high end watch is costly. IMO if you didnt spend 15k+ on your watch then there is no reason to even ask if its high end.
> 
> To me there are only 5 brands that as a whole are considered high end because every piece they make fits that bill: PP, VC, AP, Lang and BD. Every other brand out there makes either no high end, or a few (or sometimes just one) high end watches.
> 
> So this forum fits for any PP, VC, AP, Lang and BD, but no other complete brand. Only select watches. If your watch wasn't from one of the latter brands and you want to ask if its "high end" IMO you can save yourself a post if you didnt spend 15k+ on it.
> 
> Might rub some people the wrong way, but the high end line needs to be drawn on an objective not subject ground.
> 
> Perhaps this forum would hold more integrity as "15k plus watches" ? It would certainly limit the debate, and at the very least help keep this section less diluted. :-d


Cool, go buy your Patek with a quartz movement. And you just opened this up to anyone who has a Rolex with gold on it..(I know you didn't say Rolex, but you did say 15k)

you also spelled Lange incorrectly, which leads me to believe you're a troll along with your other comments. Just demonstrating lack of horological knowledge.


----------



## shnjb

fareastcoast said:


> What the hell is BD? If I don't recognize the initials, it's not high end.


What's bd?


----------



## systemcrasher

I would also consider every Parmigiani piece high end too..

more importantly what is BD??


----------



## Sassicaia

Typo...i was typing with one thumb while killing time to board a plane. It was meant to be BP. Lange was a typo too. 

Again, im not saying putting a 15k (or any price) is a 100% sure way to determine high end, but rather it would just eliminate a huge amount of brands and watches that shouldn't be in here.


----------



## shnjb

Sassicaia said:


> Typo...i was typing with one thumb while killing time to board a plane. It was meant to be BP. Lange was a typo too.
> 
> Again, im not saying putting a 15k (or any price) is a 100% sure way to determine high end, but rather it would just eliminate a huge amount of brands and watches that shouldn't be in here.


Well but we don't have a lot of traffic on this forum to begin with so maybe fewer discussions would just make things boring.


----------



## Sassicaia

shnjb said:


> Well but we don't have a lot of traffic on this forum to begin with so maybe fewer discussions would just make things boring.


Cant argue you with that. This forum is on life support. There is more action discussing what should be in the forum then actual discussion on high end time pieces.


----------



## systemcrasher

yep that's why I leave most forums... it's like "search" is completely out of some people's thought process and too many people desperately seeking approvals of others...

it's same in computer forums, mobile forums, car forums... after a year or two, it gets stale with same old topics/questions by similar people going around in circles.


----------



## Crunchy

shnjb said:


> Well but we don't have a lot of traffic on this forum to begin with so maybe fewer discussions would just make things boring.


Yep, $15k is too high. In another forum, their sales forum is divided by watches above $5k and below $5k. This is good because most rolexes and omegas can be discussed there.

Perhaps meeting somewhere in the middle, $10k is a good point?


----------



## shnjb

Yes.

honestly the entry level watches from the top makers are not haute horlogerie either (like my three hand calatrava) so I don't see a huge point in making the bar so high.


----------



## Dancing Fire

Sassicaia said:


> So this forum fits for any PP, VC, AP, Lang and BD, but no other complete brand. Only select watches. If your watch wasn't from one of the latter brands and you want to ask if its "high end" IMO you can save yourself a post if you didnt spend 15k+ on it.


no JLC ?..:-(


----------



## Sassicaia

98% of JLC, so it should likely be added to the list.


----------



## Monocrom

Sassicaia said:


> Again, im not saying putting a 15k (or any price) is a 100% sure way to determine high end, but rather it would just eliminate a huge amount of brands and watches that shouldn't be in here.


Shouldn't be there based on what? . . . One thing I've definitely learned with this hobby is that, no; you don't get what you pay for. With other hobbies, yes; you do indeed generally get what you pay for. With watches? Not the case. It's not just a handful of odd-ball models here & there under $15K that qualify as high-end. To me, and to many others in this topic, high-end means high quality. Sorry, but with watches, a high price-tag doesn't automatically get you high quality.


----------



## Monocrom

Dancing Fire said:


> no JLC ?..:-(


Nope! No monsterous price-tag. Obviously can't be high-end because of that.


----------



## shnjb

Price does correlate with quality.
We're trying to make a guideline, not a rule.
The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to make suggestive guidelines.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> Price does correlate with quality.
> We're trying to make a guideline, not a rule.
> The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to make suggestive guidelines.


Once again, with most items, yes.

With watches, my experience has shown that particular guideline doesn't apply. When you have so many exceptions to a particular rule (or guideline) you eventually get to the point when said rule or guideline simply doesn't apply.

Welcome to the insane world of high-end watches.


----------



## systemcrasher

yeah, trying to define high-end watch BRAND is completely pointless. The world has changed and companies lean towards higher sales than exclusivity. Therefore, many brands are trying and definitely do make items that are suitable from average Joe to billionaire Joe.

For some Brands, there is a clear distinction whether it's high-end or not. For many watch brands out there, it's bit unclear as their watches will vary - like Omega for example, they make cheapish quartz watches but they can also produce top of the line watches like their Skeleton Tourbillon.

And although price has relevance especially for pieces that cost over $20000, but from about $8000-$15000, it does get bit muddled...


----------



## shnjb

Well... we're after all, talking about a luxury item.

There is a diminishing return per dollar as you go higher in price in any item.
Also the market dictates the prices; it is the ultimate arbiter and how one person feels about it is irrelevant.



Monocrom said:


> Once again, with most items, yes.
> 
> With watches, my experience has shown that particular guideline doesn't apply. When you have so many exceptions to a particular rule (or guideline) you eventually get to the point when said rule or guideline simply doesn't apply.
> 
> Welcome to the insane world of high-end watches.


----------



## Monocrom

systemcrasher said:


> yeah, trying to define high-end watch BRAND is completely pointless. The world has changed and companies lean towards higher sales than exclusivity. Therefore, many brands are trying and definitely do make items that are suitable from average Joe to billionaire Joe.
> 
> For some Brands, there is a clear distinction whether it's high-end or not. For many watch brands out there, it's bit unclear as their watches will vary - like Omega for example, they make cheapish quartz watches but they can also produce top of the line watches like their Skeleton Tourbillon.
> 
> And although price has relevance especially for pieces that cost over $20000, but from about $8000-$15000, it does get bit muddled...


Excellent point. Another issue . . . When you have individuals such as Prince William and Joe Biden known for wearing quartz Omega SMPs, it makes such timepieces more desirable. Not high-end. But definitely more desirable.


----------



## systemcrasher

Yep. and Desirability doesn't always mean High-End. And with most cases, people will buy something because they desire it, not purely because they think it's a high end brand/item.

I think a true watch collector needs to break away from this notion of tiers and levels and stuff. Like and admire watches for that they are..

John Mayer, probably the biggest watch collector that I know of, has $20 million worth of watches. His favourite, he says, is G-Shock Frogman.
Each brand has its own merits (sure, some more than others) but people like different things. That's what makes these kind of hobbies interesting. It'd be so boring if everyone liked same watches and everyone had same watches...


----------



## The1

systemcrasher said:


> Yep. and Desirability doesn't always mean High-End. And with most cases, people will buy something because they desire it, not purely because they think it's a high end brand/item.
> 
> I think a true watch collector needs to break away from this notion of tiers and levels and stuff. Like and admire watches for that they are..
> 
> John Mayer, probably the biggest watch collector that I know of, has $20 million worth of watches. His favourite, he says, is G-Shock Frogman.
> Each brand has its own merits (sure, some more than others) but people like different things. That's what makes these kind of hobbies interesting. It'd be so boring if everyone liked same watches and everyone had same watches...


:deadhorse:

One day I will unsubscribe to this continually cycling thread.... And unfortunately it seems the "beating a dead horse icon doesn't work on this forum, but I'm going to leave the code there anyways to help demonstrate my point


----------



## arusso826

I just jumped around the many pages of this thread and it was a very interesting read. I think when there are 50+ pages of responses, two things should become clear from the opinions presented:

1. Every watch, regardless of price or intended function, has its place and its own reasons for appreciation. There's as much a need in the watch world for a G-Shock as a Calatrava. 

2. There are brands that, are beyond reproach in their quality, heritage, and prestige. I won't list them here, as this half a dozen or so manufacturers have been mentioned enough already.

The reason this forum exists is to honor and enjoy the finest time pieces available, not to belittle other brands or their customers. 

I own an Omega. Its a great watch that I can wear anywhere with any band and enjoy it. However, I'm not going to pretend that it belongs in the "High End Forum." It is a modest watch, appropriate for my age and income level and I am happy to have it. However, I wish to own a truly high end watch someday and I regard it as something to mark a special occasion or an achievement. A "High End Watch," to me, should not only keep time, but should also be used to remember the past. 

Anyways, there's my $0.02, cast into the fountain with the opinions of everyone else involved in this thread.


----------



## sinbad2k

Have anyone seen these charts before?
Watch Brand Ranking List/Graph


----------



## shnjb

sinbad2k said:


> Have anyone seen these charts before?
> Watch Brand Ranking List/Graph


That's a cool chart.
I wonder if it was done by management consultants doing some analysis for the watch companies.


----------



## mark1958

What year was that created?



sinbad2k said:


> Have anyone seen these charts before?
> Watch Brand Ranking List/Graph


----------



## mark1958

oops i missed the 2009


mark1958 said:


> What year was that created?


----------



## sinbad2k

mark1958 said:


> oops i missed the 2009


I went to shop owned directly by Swatch Group last weekend and the sales consultant showed me a pyramid chart ranking of brands (obviously within the Swatch Group). The ranking is still more or less the same. Considering the fact that that the shop is owned by them, I think the chart I saw could be trusted and the tables and graph in the link could still be relevant?


----------



## fareastcoast

grand seiko. do you guys consider this high end? the list prices tend to be around 4-7k which may seem a bit low, but the pieces themselves are quite well made and have the mystique of grand seiko.


----------



## shnjb

fareastcoast said:


> grand seiko. do you guys consider this high end? the list prices tend to be around 4-7k which may seem a bit low, but the pieces themselves are quite well made and have the mystique of grand seiko.


I would say no.
I don't think it's any more special than a Rolex, which I guess is not considered high-end.


----------



## Monocrom

fareastcoast said:


> grand seiko. do you guys consider this high end? the list prices tend to be around 4-7k which may seem a bit low, but the pieces themselves are quite well made and have the mystique of grand seiko.


Would depend on the particular Grand Seiko model. Though honestly, many dismiss GS simply due to "Seiko" being part of the name.


----------



## systemcrasher

I tried a GS on once before (mind you, very hard to come by in Australia) and it felt less refined than what I imagined it to be.. I didn't like the feeling of the bracelet or the weight of the watch. I sort of didn't like the fact that it had no drama. This is the best watch Seiko makes and other than the badge, there is nothing else hinting at this. I was pretty disenchanted by the first encounter.

Considering that I could've got a Navitimer 01 with the asking price and in my books, Navi 01 rates higher than GS for several reasons. But I do not consider Navi 01 a high end watch, therefore GS is not high end in my books.


----------



## sharlywan

Perrelet you consider it high end or is more with rolex, corum, etc? and Parmigiani?


----------



## fareastcoast

sharlywan said:


> Perrelet you consider it high end or is more with rolex, corum, etc? and Parmigiani?


Perrelet is not high end, Parmigiani is borderline, but probably also not high end.


----------



## omeglycine

I've never held one, but surely Parmigiani is high-end.


----------



## Watchbreath

|> Yep.


omeglycine said:


> I've never held one, but surely Parmigiani is high-end.


----------



## Watermark

mleok said:


> Let me reproduce a helpful table from chronocentric.
> 
> 
> *High-End Luxury*
> There are always superb options when money is no object.
>  Expect To Get: A particularly refined watch recognized only by people "in the know." Very exclusive in design and craftsmanship, produced in small numbers, available through only very specialized dealers. In short, these are the Rolls Royce class of timepieces. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantinstarting at $5,000 for Steel models
> starting at $10,000 for Gold on a leather strap
> starting at $20,000 for Gold on a Gold bracelet
> with the sky as the limit. Some watches can exceed $2,000,000. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Either highly distinctive or ultra-conservative.Very to extremely limited production. Partially to completely handcrafted.Hand finished mechanical movements either developed and produced by the same company ('in-house') or bought from specialty movement houses and highly customized. Additional mechanical complications--from obvious ones like moon phases and power reserve indicators to very subtle ones like correctly handling all the obscure conditions of the Gregorian calendar.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold mainly through very exclusive and high-end jewelry dealers. While some modest discounts are customary, larger discounts are rare. Some of these are available through gray market dealers. But on such exclusive and expensive products, it is not usually a good idea to buy through unauthorized sources.Because of high new watch prices and limited production, used models are in notable demand and still command quite decent prices.Always collectible, always valuable.*Summary:* If you have the kind of money necessary to play in this field, then you likely do understand what the true merits and values of world-class luxury items have to offer. These are the products that impress those in the know, not the average Joe on the street. Exclusivity and extremes of refinement and jewelry value are king here. 
> 
> 
> *Luxury*
> The largest, most widely known class of luxury timepieces
> 
>  Expect To Get: An elegant, valuable, stylish and prestigious watch that will serve you well for a long time. Of quality and durability that the watch can be passed down to your children. If maintained in good condition, can be resold whether it is 6 months or 30 years old. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Breitling, Cartier, Ebel, Omega, Rolex$1,000-$4,000 for Steel models
> $2,500-$8,000 for Gold on a leather strap
> $5,000-$20,000 for Gold on a Gold bracelet
> Only modest discounts available through most brand-authorized dealers. Moderate discounts available from unauthorized "gray market" dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Trend-setting styles that range from traditional to highly original. Each brand usually has at least one or two very distinctive styles.Cases and bracelets mass-produced, but with the superlative fit and finish of fine jewelry. Surgical grade steel. Solid gold of 18 karat or sometimes 14 karat. Highly scratch-resistant sapphire crystals.High-end movements mass produced by the brand, or by a different company and then often customized by the brand. Dominantly very high-grade quartz and chronometer-grade mechanical. Digital quartz not seen at this level except for a few very specialized aerospace watches.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold officially mainly through dealers of higher-end jewelry. Though several forms of unauthorized resellers exist. Discounts through authorized dealers are restricted by the manufacturers to avoid cheapening the brand image.Superb market. Watches in this class are well sought after, but their high initial pricing encourages many buyers to seek used ones to better suit their budgets.Superb market. Watches in this class can last for many decades and are readily available through many reputable used watch dealers.*Summary:* This is the main tier of true luxury watches. Overall, these can be a good value because manufacturers at this level are not skimping to offer 'luxury' products at more moderate prices--yet they mostly do not go to outrageous excess in details without regard to cost of the highest-end brands. Better durability and modest depreciation rates make the long-term cost of ownership of these watches quite reasonable. Used watches in this tier can be an outstanding value. 
> 
> 
> *Pseudo Luxury Watches*
> When you want a better luxury watch, but don't want to spend so much
>  Expect To Get: An elegant and stylish watch that will serve you well for a moderate number of years. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, Tag Heuer$500-$2,000 for Steel models
> $750-$4,000 for Gold models
> Moderate to heavy discounts available through various dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:More trend following than trend leading.Mass-produced with adequate fit and finish. Steel. Filled or solid gold. Crystals may be mineral glass, acrylic or sometimes synthetic sapphire.High-volume mass-production. Mostly analog quartz and non-chronometer grade mechanical. These brands tend to focus mostly on luxury-style exteriors equipped with very common, unexceptional watch movements.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold as the 'better' brands in department stores and mall-type watch store chains. Sometimes sold as the 'low-end' brands in fine jewelry stores.Limited market. Despite some of these being priced new close to brands in the true Luxury category, the heavier discounting when new, trendy styles that become dated and poorer long term durability depreciate their value rapidly.Most of these brands cannot claim any meaningful vintage heritage, even though some are operating under names of bought out companies that were well reputed in earlier decades.*Summary:* This is the transition tier--these watches are the high-end brands of the mass market stores, but the low-end brands at the finer jewelry stores. Overall, these can be the weaker value in luxury watches. They still have hefty prices, yet lack many of the better durability and long-term value benefits of the only slightly more expensive watches. Used watches from brands in the next tier up bought from reliable used watch dealers are usually a much better value. 
> 
> 
> *Basic Luxury Watches*
> When you want something finer than average
>  Expect To Get: An elegant and stylish watch that will serve you well for a number of years. Examples of Brands in this Range:Expect Retail Prices To Be: Epos, Fortis, Movado, Orisunder $1,000 for Steel models
> under $2,000 for Gold models
> Moderate to heavy discounts available through various dealers. Design/Style:On The Outside:On The Inside:Mostly classic or trend following, though some brands in this class depend on style uniqueness as their real value.Mass-produced with adequate fit and finish. Steel. Plated or filled golds. Crystals are usually the scratchable but inexpensively replaced mineral glass or acrylic type.High-volume mass-production. Mostly analog quartz and non-chronometer grade mechanical. However some offer very unique complications at modest prices relative to most of the luxury watch market.As NEW watches:As USED watches:As VINTAGE watches:Sold in department stores and mall-type watch store chains, though some of these brands are unique enough that they only appear in watch specialty stores. Sometimes sold as the 'low-end' brands in fine jewelry stores.Limited market, main point of resale for this class of watches is pawn shops.Once these watches reach a 'vintage' age, their style, condition and values are seldom appealing enough to create any significant demand for them--except for those in virtually unused condition.*Summary:* This is the first tier of 'luxury' caliber watches. While there is a broad range, many brands at this level are excellent values as they are not trying to be more than they are. Some concentrate more on 'fashion' watches, others focus on affordable yet horologically sound products. The more modest prices make these a less risky purchase--you haven't invested so much that long-term value is of such concern. 


I must be crazy. I just spent the better part of 3 hours reading most of this thread and the first box on this chart sums it up for me.

"A particularly refined watch only recognized by people in the know. I couldn't agree more.

JLC for the 2011 posts was in every list and I agree. Yet people that didn't read the thread wondered if it should be 2 years later. 

jlc for sure. FP Journe for sure.

My favorite post. Who knows when in this massive thread about the gentleman having lunch with a friend. The friend has a brand new Tag on bragging it up and tells his friend if he ever wants to learn how to buy a real watch give him a call. 
The Friend had a Lange on. 

To me this sums it up. Paragraph one. Refined and recognized by those in the know.


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Parmigiani*



fareastcoast said:


> Perrelet is not high end, Parmigiani is borderline, but probably also not high end.


Michel Parmigiani's company (Parmigiani Fleurier) produces watches of impeccable craftsmanship by ANY standard. All of their watches meet the standards outlined below which are exceedingly high in their quality standards. Some of Chopard's LUC watches also meet these quality standards (Parmigiani designed the LUC 1.96 calibre BTW)

The Validation Criteria - FQF certification

Manufactured 100% in Switzerland - Fleurier Quality

Technical and aesthetic criteria - Fleurier Quality

Chronofiable Test - Fleurier Quality certification

COSC Test (ISO 3159) - FQF certification

The running of the finished watch must pass the Fleuritest

Affixing the FQF logo - Fleurier Quality

I personally do find them to be aesthetically to my liking; but that can be said about many fine brands of watches.

Nuf said...


----------



## Watermark

*Re: Parmigiani*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Michel Parmigiani's company (Parmigiani Fleurier) produces watches of impeccable craftsmanship by ANY standard. All of their watches meet the standards outlined below which are exceedingly high in their quality standards. Some of Chopard's LUC watches also meet these quality standards (Parmigiani designed the LUC 1.96 calibre BTW)
> 
> The Validation Criteria - FQF certification
> 
> Manufactured 100% in Switzerland - Fleurier Quality
> 
> Technical and aesthetic criteria - Fleurier Quality
> 
> Chronofiable Test - Fleurier Quality certification
> 
> COSC Test (ISO 3159) - FQF certification
> 
> The running of the finished watch must pass the Fleuritest
> 
> Affixing the FQF logo - Fleurier Quality
> 
> I personally do find them to be aesthetically to my liking; but that can be said about many fine brands of watches.
> 
> Nuf said...


Unfortunately they have zero resale value compared to many high end brands. I do think some of them are nice looking.


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: Parmigiani*

Poor resale is the norm with most watch brands.


Watermark said:


> Unfortunately they have zero resale value compared to many high end brands. I do think some of them are nice looking.


----------



## Watermark

*Re: Parmigiani*



Watchbreath said:


> Poor resale is the norm with most watch brands.


While I agree it's the norm ALS and PP for example hold very good resale. This I believe is what sets them apart from many other manufactures. AP does ok with resale but I believe this is where VC falls off the top spots.


----------



## agong

I do not think that a watch is less high end just because it has poor resale value. Resale is merely an indication of the popularity among the general public. A rolex and omega scores well in resale, but pale in comparison to a breguet or a vacheron in aspects that defines 'a high end watch'


----------



## Watermark

agong said:


> I do not think that a watch is less high end just because it has poor resale value. Resale is merely an indication of the popularity among the general public. A rolex and omega scores well in resale, but pale in comparison to a breguet or a vacheron in aspects that defines 'a high end watch'


I should have stated that I believe this should be *one* of the factors for making them high end. Sorry to mislead. I would say that your examples Breguet and Vacheron pale in comparison only because the general population just don't know what they are. Therefore I believe Rolex and Omega for your examples will have a MUCH larger audience for resale. This very much plays a factor in their popularity.


----------



## shnjb

I would think that resale value has some correlation with a lot of factors, such as perceived quality, reliability, serviceability, popularity, etc.
So when you are comparing two similar brands like VC and Lange and one has a better resale value (I don't know if this is true or not), that brand deserves some points.


----------



## Watchbreath

It has more to do with name recognition via great marketing, Rolex.


shnjb said:


> I would think that resale value has some correlation with a lot of factors, such as perceived quality, reliability, serviceability, popularity, etc.
> So when you are comparing two similar brands like VC and Lange and one has a better resale value (I don't know if this is true or not), that brand deserves some points.


----------



## shnjb

Watchbreath said:


> It has more to do with name recognition via great marketing, Rolex.


Well but we're not talking about Rolex here.
Nobody around here would think of Rolex as a high-end brand.


----------



## Watermark

shnjb said:


> I would think that resale value has some correlation with a lot of factors, such as perceived quality, reliability, serviceability, popularity, etc.
> So when you are comparing two similar brands like VC and Lange and one has a better resale value (I don't know if this is true or not), that brand deserves some points.


I'd agree for sure. I also don't ever see VC having anything close to Lange's resale. This is my opinion tho. I'm not on the hunt for any VC of any kind ever.


shnjb said:


> Well but we're not talking about Rolex here.
> Nobody around here would think of Rolex as a high-end brand.


Except the guys in the Rolex section


----------



## shnjb

Watermark said:


> I'd agree for sure. I also don't ever see VC having anything close to Lange's resale. This is my opinion tho. I'm not on the hunt for any VC of any kind ever.
> Except the guys in the Rolex section


what about VC used?


----------



## Monocrom

I have to agree that re-sale value is one indicator of what category a brand belongs in. Not the only one. But certainly one of them. Rather tough to say a watch is a luxury or high-end model if the pre-owned market is 40% or even 50% below that of new. This is a big issue with Raymond Weil that ironically makes them very good values on the pre-owned market, while a new one isn't worth it with a sizeable discount thrown in.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Someone said to me before, don't make your final decision based on resale value but always consider it a factor because if one day you look back and say " What the heck I was thinking when I expend all this money on watches" Then at least you have the ability to get a good percentage of that money back.


----------



## Watchbreath

:-d Now you've done it. as Bugs Bunny used to say, "Of coarse you know, this means war".


shnjb said:


> Well but we're not talking about Rolex here.
> Nobody around here would think of Rolex as a high-end brand.


----------



## systemcrasher

lol, so the discussion going towards resale value now?

So can G-shocks be in the high end forum? I've sold few of my g-bangers at close to 80% of my purchase prices 


And just regarding Parmigiani, their movement and craftsmanship aren't too far off Patek. Just as a reference note, while I was in Korea at the end of last year, Parmigiani was the only brand which I had to make an appointment to see their watches. Also, Michael Parmigiani is the head of Patek Museum and in charge of restoring their vintage pieces. I don't think Patek would entrust that with any ol' watchmaker.


----------



## Watermark

systemcrasher said:


> lol, so the discussion going towards resale value now?
> 
> So can G-shocks be in the high end forum? I've sold few of my g-bangers at close to 80% of my purchase prices
> 
> And just regarding Parmigiani, their movement and craftsmanship aren't too far off Patek. Just as a reference note, while I was in Korea at the end of last year, Parmigiani was the only brand which I had to make an appointment to see their watches. Also, Michael Parmigiani is the head of Patek Museum and in charge of restoring their vintage pieces. I don't think Patek would entrust that with any ol' watchmaker.


He makes some pretty watches. I didn't know this info about him.

As far as resale i only believe it's part of the big picture.

High end watches are art. They speak to the person and say buy me. Not unlike a Picasso or Mirp .They all have their place in someones collection.

I wouldn't spend 3 million on a Picasso knowing it may drop to $100k one day guaranteed either.

So resale will play into some purchases for me on expensive watches, not $5k pieces. I know those won't.


----------



## agong

Watermark said:


> He makes some pretty watches. I didn't know this info about him.
> 
> As far as resale i only believe it's part of the big picture.
> 
> High end watches are art. They speak to the person and say buy me. Not unlike a Picasso or Mirp .They all have their place in someones collection.
> 
> I wouldn't spend 3 million on a Picasso knowing it may drop to $100k one day guaranteed either.
> 
> So resale will play into some purchases for me on expensive watches, not $5k pieces. I know those won't.


I still feel that resale value is not part of the considerations when determining whether a piece is high end. Even within a brand, some models are poorer resale values than the others. And imo, a diamond studded female watch often suffer greater loss in resale value. But I wouldn't think that an exact same model is less high end just because its a female watch and loses more in resale?

Resale value merely represents the general sentiments on the watch suitability to them. Their style, marketing and popularity comes into play. Many high end watches have milder marketing strategy and thus less popular. On the other hand, they will be more exclusive! :thumbup:


----------



## hydrocarbon

shnjb said:


> Well but we're not talking about Rolex here.
> Nobody around here would think of Rolex as a high-end brand.


Agreed, and Rolex is among my favourite manufacturers. I wouldn't consider them as a high-end maker either, nor would I want them to be; the high-end niche just isn't their goal.

As I'm certain you'd also agree, a true piece of _horlogerie_ is definitely a pleasure when circumstances permit, but it's a foolish to wear such a watch outside of its element. For everyday use, I appreciate having the option of a watch with no quality excuses that's more utilitarian in purpose, since things like water resistance, reliability and robustness can be important considerations too. The downside of the beautifully-decorated high-end pieces is that service is long and costly, so it's liberating to have something half-decent that you don't have to stress much about wearing. At the same time, it's great to have something special when the occasion suits.

The relationship between a company like Rolex and one like Patek Philippe is more complementary than competitive, as there's essentially no overlap between their products due to their fundamental differences. The companies themselves recognize this, and have a high level of mutual respect. In fact, Patek Philippe is the only company that Rolex will comment publicly about, and it's a sign of their professionalism that it's always in positive terms. Patek's representatives likewise unfailingly speak highly of Rolex when offering comment.

Most seasoned watch people seem to appreciate both the calculated precision of no-compromise mass production as well as the visual beauty of traditional hands-on craftsmanship, and are aware of the benefits and the drawbacks of each approach.


----------



## shnjb

I agree of course.
I love rolexes. It was my first real watch given to me by my grandfather.


----------



## hydrocarbon

I didn't doubt it at all. I know of very few people who are into high-end watches who bash Rolex; that sort of thing seems to be more of the calling card of the uninitiated. 

Saying they're not high-end is definitely no insult, either. They're instead an example of mass production with clever design and superb quality control. That's why their relationship with high-end makers is complementary rather than adversarial, since most watch nuts are likely to appreciate and want examples of both styles.


----------



## Watermark

shnjb said:


> I agree of course.
> I love rolexes. It was my first real watch given to me by my grandfather.


While I will most likely never own a Rolex I wish I had something from one of my Grandpas. So cool. I hope my kids pass my watches down in the years I am gone to their kids. So COOL!!!


hydrocarbon said:


> I didn't doubt it at all. I know of very few people who are into high-end watches who bash Rolex; that sort of thing seems to be more of the calling card of the uninitiated.
> 
> Saying they're not high-end is definitely no insult, either. They're instead an example of mass production with clever design and superb quality control. That's why their relationship with high-end makers is complementary rather than adversarial, since most watch nuts are likely to appreciate and want examples of both styles.


I don't speak too highly of Rolex very often. I think their advertising and general public perception really puts me off of them. I do like 3 or 4 of them. Nothing against their mechanicals. I just wish Rolex was written much smaller on them or on the back.


----------



## Monocrom

hydrocarbon said:


> Agreed, and Rolex is among my favourite manufacturers. I wouldn't consider them as a high-end maker either, nor would I want them to be; the high-end niche just isn't their goal.


Ask the _*average*_ Rolex owner if the brand is high-end, and watch them smile at you in amusement while saying "Of Course."

Try pointing out that the brand isn't, and before you can explain that that is not an insult, watch the average owner get defensive as Hell towards you. Rolex is more than happy with having (once again) their AVERAGE customers think of the brand as high-end. And thus paying the asking prices on those Rolex watches. Especially when those prices go up once every few months with zero improvements to the watches themselves. Why strive and work hard to actually achieve a status as a high-end brand when most of your customers already think you are one? This is one time when perception becomes truth . . . Due to enough folks believing it to be true.


----------



## systemcrasher

I consider Daytona a high end piece. But that's where it stops as far as Rolex watches go.

I don't mind the aggressive nature of Rolex's marketing strategies.. In some ways I respect it as their marketing strategies clearly works. It's the average Rolex owners that turns me off that brand - much like your average Tag owners:-x


----------



## Watchbreath

Maybe the Tiffany Daytona.


systemcrasher said:


> I consider Daytona a high end piece. But that's where it stops as far as Rolex watches go.
> 
> I don't mind the aggressive nature of Rolex's marketing strategies.. In some ways I respect it as their marketing strategies clearly works. It's the average Rolex owners that turns me off that brand - much like your average Tag owners:-x


----------



## cedargrove

Monocrom said:


> Ask the _*average*_ Rolex owner if the brand is high-end, and watch them smile at you in amusement while saying "Of Course."
> 
> Try pointing out that the brand isn't, and before you can explain that that is not an insult, watch the average owner get defensive as Hell towards you. Rolex is more than happy with having (once again) their AVERAGE customers think of the brand as high-end. And thus paying the asking prices on those Rolex watches. Especially when those prices go up once every few months with zero improvements to the watches themselves. Why strive and work hard to actually achieve a status as a high-end brand when most of your customers already think you are one? This is one time when perception becomes truth . . . Due to enough folks believing it to be true.


The average person isn't wrong, Rolex is in fact high end to most people.. Personally I think of Rolex, and some lesser brands, as high end.

In the grand spectrum of watches, everyone will have a different opinion as to where the high end watches begin, which might explain why this thread is 54 pages long.


----------



## Watermark

cedargrove said:


> The average person isn't wrong, Rolex is in fact high end to most people.. Personally I think of Rolex, and some lesser brands, as high end.
> 
> In the grand spectrum of watches, everyone will have a different opinion as to where the high end watches begin, which might explain why this thread is 54 pages long.


Rolex is high end

High end Mall store watch.

Rolex has done an amazing marketing job. The reason I wouldn't wear one. People perceive it's high end.

You could have a 5960 Patek on and the guy nexxt to you a yellow gold submariner. 99,999 of 100k people will think the Rolez owner is rich and balling. 1 will know the truth.

Again great marketing in 1000s of mall stores. The average person only knows what they see.


----------



## systemcrasher

cedargrove said:


> The average person isn't wrong, Rolex is in fact high end to most people...


I wouldn't say that average people aren't wrong. Because for these average people, knowledge of watch brands wouldn't go beyond Rolex. Calling Rolex high end brand because they are unaware of brands like PP, ALS, AP, VC and many others can only be seen as "wrong" because they are basing their opinion on incomplete information.


----------



## systemcrasher

Watermark said:


> You could have a 5960 Patek on and the guy nexxt to you a yellow gold submariner. 99,999 of 100k people will think the Rolez owner is rich and balling. 1 will know the truth.


Another reason I wouldn't get Rolex. Very little chance of getting stabbed wearing PP, ALS or VC


----------



## Monocrom

systemcrasher said:


> Another reason I wouldn't get Rolex. Very little chance of getting stabbed wearing PP, ALS or VC


Hell, I know some neighborhoods where you're likely to get stabbed if you don't turn over your giant, diamond-encrusted, Invicta fast enough to the mugger. He'll still take your wallet. But likely will let you keep your boring old P.P. since it doesn't scream "Steal Me! I'm worth money!"


----------



## agong

Monocrom said:


> Hell, I know some neighborhoods where you're likely to get stabbed if you don't turn over your giant, diamond-encrusted, Invicta fast enough to the mugger. He'll still take your wallet. But likely will let you keep your boring old P.P. since it doesn't scream "Steal Me! I'm worth money!"


Yes yes!! Discreet white gold watches. Perhaps so informed crooks might still be acquainted with patek and AP, but I'm sure watches such as H moser cie would be an ultra safe bet.


----------



## Crunchy

Monocrom said:


> Hell, I know some neighborhoods where you're likely to get stabbed if you don't turn over your giant, diamond-encrusted, Invicta fast enough to the mugger. He'll still take your wallet. But likely will let you keep your boring old P.P. since it doesn't scream "Steal Me! I'm worth money!"


 robbers will take any watch if it's made of gold and on a strap. Even a seiko. The marginal cost of taking your watch is nothing, they have done the crime, tey'll take anything, don't fool yourself thinking your pp wont get robbed.

On another topic, Rolex is definitely High end. It's luxury item and is priced to be that. The moment they are mot high end, they lose their appeal. You guys can mention mass production etc etc, but the fact is that 90% of normal people won't buy a rolex. WUS is a skewed bubble on this regard.


----------



## agong

Crunchy said:


> robbers will take any watch if it's made of gold and on a strap. Even a seiko. The marginal cost of taking your watch is nothing, they have done the crime, tey'll take anything, don't fool yourself thinking your pp wont get robbed.
> 
> On another topic, Rolex is definitely High end. It's luxury item and is priced to be that. The moment they are mot high end, they lose their appeal. You guys can mention mass production etc etc, but the fact is that 90% of normal people won't buy a rolex. WUS is a skewed bubble on this regard.


Rolex appealed to everyone as a luxury watch. Not necessarily high end.


----------



## Monocrom

Crunchy said:


> robbers will take any watch if it's made of gold and on a strap. Even a seiko. The marginal cost of taking your watch is nothing, they have done the crime, they'll take anything, don't fool yourself thinking your pp wont get robbed.


The smart ones know to get in & out quick. If your watch looks like it's not worth taking, the experienced ones generally won't waste the few seconds they could be making their escape in taking it off of you. I've helped a few acquaintances get over getting mugged. Quite a few still had their watches afterwards.



> On another topic, Rolex is definitely High end. It's luxury item and is priced to be that.


Quite a few other members have already pointed out in this topic why Rolex isn't high-end. Ironically, so did you, above. Yes, Rolex watches are luxury items. Yes, no one is disputing that Rolex is firmly established as a luxury brand. No argument there. But "Luxury" and "High-End" are two separate categories. With High-End being above Luxury.

Yes, Rolex watches are indeed priced to be luxury items. They're not priced as High-End items.


----------



## systemcrasher

someone should start a thread "Difference between Luxury Watches and High-end Watches"


----------



## Crunchy

Monocrom said:


> The smart ones know to get in & out quick. If your watch looks like it's not worth taking, the experienced ones generally won't waste the few seconds they could be making their escape in taking it off of you. I've helped a few acquaintances get over getting mugged. Quite a few still had their watches afterwards.
> 
> Quite a few other members have already pointed out in this topic why Rolex isn't high-end. Ironically, so did you, above. Yes, Rolex watches are luxury items. Yes, no one is disputing that Rolex is firmly established as a luxury brand. No argument there. But "Luxury" and "High-End" are two separate categories. With High-End being above Luxury.
> 
> Yes, Rolex watches are indeed priced to be luxury items. They're not priced as High-End items.


I'm all for the forum mate, if no rolex this high end forum will be silent as a grave...


----------



## Monocrom

Yup . . . Must have a brand to point to and sneer at.

(Just kidding.)

:-d


----------



## systemcrasher

Crunchy said:


> I'm all for the forum mate, if no rolex this high end forum will be silent as a grave...


That's why we must keep telling people that Rolex is not high end brand. That way the Rolex enthusiasts will keep coming back here asking the question


----------



## Watermark

systemcrasher said:


> That's why we must keep telling people that Rolex is not high end brand. That way the Rolex enthusiasts will keep coming back here asking the question


Ok I will bite

Rolex guys.

What is a High End car?


----------



## shnjb

Watermark said:


> Ok I will bite
> 
> Rolex guys.
> 
> What is a High End car?


Brands:
Lambo 
Ferrari
Mclaren
Bugatti
Zonda(? since they don't even make their own engines)

But then there are brands such as Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche etc who make high end cars.


----------



## Watermark

shnjb said:


> Brands:
> Lambo
> Ferrari
> Mclaren
> Bugatti
> Zonda(? since they don't even make their own engines)
> 
> But then there are brands such as Lexus, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche etc who make high end cars.


Lamebo has Audi making their engines as well 
So we can equate High End watches to high end cars easily. Exotic and Rare most of the makers above you've stated. Yes Lexus makes (1) the LFA which most car guys don't want. Mercedes doesn't although they tried with the SLR but failed miserably except in the middle east. Porsche without question with GT3RS, GT2RS, CGT, 918 and soon to be release 2017 960 but still most are luxury cars only ............................Does Rolex make Exotic and Rare? No Rolex is a luxury watch and nothing else the Lexus sedan of the watch world.


----------



## shnjb

Watermark said:


> Lamebo has Audi making their engines as well
> So we can equate High End watches to high end cars easily. Exotic and Rare most of the makers above you've stated. Yes Lexus makes (1) the LFA which most car guys don't want. Mercedes doesn't although they tried with the SLR but failed miserably except in the middle east. Porsche without question with GT3RS, GT2RS, CGT, 918 and soon to be release 2017 960 but still most are luxury cars only ............................Does Rolex make Exotic and Rare? No Rolex is a luxury watch and nothing else the Lexus sedan of the watch world.


Yes I do think the parallels between the two industries are interesting.

But the key difference is that cars are a functional necessity for most people in cities without good public transportation.
So you would have to categorize quartz watches and/or cell phones as sub $30000 cars and then everything else (higher than 30k segment) as mechanical watches.


----------



## Watermark

shnjb said:


> Yes I do think the parallels between the two industries are interesting.
> 
> But the key difference is that cars are a functional necessity for most people in cities without good public transportation.
> So you would have to categorize quartz watches and/or cell phones as sub $30000 cars and then everything else (higher than 30k segment) as mechanical watches.


awe yes many cars could be categorized as quartz....Well the Prius would be the number one battery car on the road.


----------



## Watchbreath

1952 Henry J


----------



## systemcrasher

I try not to use car's as examples as many of the members here do not like it, but you guys have nailed it.

Rolex will never be watch brand equivalent of Rolls Royce, Maybach, Ferrari, Bentley, Lambo, Pagani, Bugatti of the car industry.

Rolex in my mind, is somewhere around BMW M3-M5 or Merc C63 AMG or Audi RS4. Sure Rolex may make handful of watches that can compete with the high end watches - like aforementioned Audi R8 or something like Nissan GTR but as a brand/company, neither Audi or Nissan are anywhere near Ferrari.

The biggest thing to consider is all cars Ferrari make are high end sports cars. Much like PP, ALS.

BMW, Merc make cars that people consider are high end cars, but they don't necessarily become high end car manufacturers just based on few of their high end sedans and sports cars.


----------



## Rdenney

Every now and again, I swing through this thread to monitor the state of play. 

The problem, as has been said repeatedly, is that "high end" has no definition. So, if resolution is required (which it obviously isn't), just set a retail dollar value and have done. 

Definitions are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. Words mean what people think they mean. A $10,000 watch is a high-end watch to everyone except the guy who spent $15K and wants to use the definition to exclude those who only spent $10K from his private club. That impulse underlies a lot of the arguments and analogies in this thread, though the numbers are adjusted according to taste. 

I'd be happy to set the limit at watches that are hand-fitted versus serially produced (both, of course, use machine-made parts), but that distinction cuts across brands. Zenith Academy models--absolutely hand-fitted. Standard Captains, Pilots--serially produced. All Rolexes are serially produced. All Pateks are hand-fitted. And so on. Defining which is which is tricky, but WISes ought to be up to that task. 

But "high-end" usually means to regular people a price so high that it is clearly intended to make the product exclusive. The county in which I live has the highest median income in the United States, and my serially produced Zenith Captain would be considered high end by nearly everyone who lives here, WISes excepted, if they knew what i paid for it. Maybe not to some of the foreign diplomats that live a little closer to DC, but then someone has to by stuff I can't afford (heh).

So, instead if defining high end, just change the name of this forum to "haute horlogerie", which means stuff made the best it can be without regard to cost. Draw the line at hand-fitted watches versus serially produced watches. Then, you could start a new thread and argue about what THAT means for another 500 pages. 

Rick "whose wealthy friends think his Ebels are high-end" Denney


----------



## Watermark

Rdenney said:


> Every now and again, I swing through this thread to monitor the state of play.
> 
> The problem, as has been said repeatedly, is that "high end" has no definition. So, if resolution is required (which it obviously isn't), just set a retail dollar value and have done.
> 
> Definitions are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. Words mean what people think they mean. A $10,000 watch is a high-end watch to everyone except the guy who spent $15K and wants to use the definition to exclude those who only spent $10K from his private club. That impulse underlies a lot of the arguments and analogies in this thread, though the numbers are adjusted according to taste.
> 
> I'd be happy to set the limit at watches that are hand-fitted versus serially produced (both, of course, use machine-made parts), but that distinction cuts across brands. Zenith Academy models--absolutely hand-fitted. Standard Captains, Pilots--serially produced. All Rolexes are serially produced. All Pateks are hand-fitted. And so on. Defining which is which is tricky, but WISes ought to be up to that task.
> 
> But "high-end" usually means to regular people a price so high that it is clearly intended to make the product exclusive. The county in which I live has the highest median income in the United States, and my serially produced Zenith Captain would be considered high end by nearly everyone who lives here, WISes excepted, if they knew what i paid for it. Maybe not to some of the foreign diplomats that live a little closer to DC, but then someone has to by stuff I can't afford (heh).
> 
> So, instead if defining high end, just change the name of this forum to "haute horlogerie", which means stuff made the best it can be without regard to cost. Draw the line at hand-fitted watches versus serially produced watches. Then, you could start a new thread and argue about what THAT means for another 500 pages.
> 
> Rick "whose wealthy friends think his Ebels are high-end" Denney


I agree. I think LOL

when I asked about car comparison I was almost certain people would chime in Mercedes. One of the most sterile boring crap makers of autos in the world. Mass produced depreciation engines. Rolex is a good example. All the same. No changes ever and looking to sell as many as humanly possible. Thou Rolex trumps Benz on resale


----------



## shnjb

Rdenney said:


> ...nearly everyone who lives here, WISes excepted, if they knew what i paid for it.


But arent we a bunch of WISes on WUS?


----------



## shnjb

honestly i dont see a huge problem with what goes on now.
people are mostly discussing in-house movement watches with msrp of $15000 and up.
occasionally we have topics of 10k or even 8k but we dont stop those discussions.

rarely we have tag heuer type questions and the moderator moves the discussion to a place where the discussion may be more lively.

this isnt an exclusive club or anything as there are few perks.
so i wouldnt mind more discussion with lower bar for what qualifies but in general people seem to agree on what high-end means.


----------



## Rdenney

shnjb said:


> ...
> so i wouldnt mind more discussion with lower bar for what qualifies but in general people seem to agree on what high-end means.


Was that Post 557 or 558?

Rick "just curious" Denney


----------



## hkwatchguy

I think most people reject the idea of Rolex being considered high-end due to just how ubiquitous it is... and they have a point. 

As much as we can all try to come up with a clean, erudite definition of "high-end" that deals only in facts. At the end of the day, I think a certain degree of pretentious exclusivity is a key definition for defining "high-end". 

In otherwords, the best way to define a high-end brand is to define it's customers. I think high-end brands are those who appeal to customers who 1) really appreciate watches that they are willing to pay an absurd premium for their appreciation 2) identify themselves through their loves of watches.


----------



## lightguy

I would say the movements have to be specific to the brand (or supplier to another high end watch mfg up the $ ladder) and have hand polishing and detailing.


----------



## Watermark

hkwatchguy said:


> I think most people reject the idea of Rolex being considered high-end due to just how ubiquitous it is... and they have a point.
> 
> As much as we can all try to come up with a clean, erudite definition of "high-end" that deals only in facts. At the end of the day, I think a certain degree of pretentious exclusivity is a key definition for defining "high-end".
> 
> In otherwords, the best way to define a high-end brand is to define it's customers. I think high-end brands are those who appeal to customers who 1) really appreciate watches that they are willing to pay an absurd premium for their appreciation 2) identify themselves through their loves of watches.


May I ask what you think of the Zeitwerk? It's definitely on my short list of pieces over the next couple of years.


----------



## hkwatchguy

Watermark said:


> May I ask what you think of the Zeitwerk? It's definitely on my short list of pieces over the next couple of years.


Lol hmm... Well, to be entirely honest, I'm pretty hot and cold on the zeitwerk. It's a really cool watch, but ultimately, it's exactly that, a cool if not gimmicky watch.

I find myself admiring it in a box since its such a cool concept, but never actually wearing it since its not really a stylish watch (tbh, it looks kind of silly in business wear environment).

That's just me though, you should probably check one put in person if you get a chance.


----------



## Watermark

hkwatchguy said:


> Lol hmm... Well, to be entirely honest, I'm pretty hot and cold on the zeitwerk. It's a really cool watch, but ultimately, it's exactly that, a cool if not gimmicky watch.
> 
> I find myself admiring it in a box since its such a cool concept, but never actually wearing it since its not really a stylish watch (tbh, it looks kind of silly in business wear environment).
> 
> That's just me though, you should probably check one put in person if you get a chance.


I've had one on.

While I love the looks I completely get where you are coming from. I rarely am in what most would call a business environment so I don't worry too much about the different look of it. I worry most that I will bore of it quickly and want to move on to something else. I dislike selling watches.

That in my opinion is an excellent review. Thank you so much. Very helpful and secured a couple of my thoughts about it myself.


----------



## mleok

Watermark said:


> I've had one on.
> 
> While I love the looks I completely get where you are coming from. I rarely am in what most would call a business environment so I don't worry too much about the different look of it. I worry most that I will bore of it quickly and want to move on to something else. I dislike selling watches.
> 
> That in my opinion is an excellent review. Thank you so much. Very helpful and secured a couple of my thoughts about it myself.


I tried one on in person, and it is indeed a very cool watch, but I'm not sure it would be a watch that I would wear regularly even if I could afford one. The dial side just doesn't really speak to me, and it is definitely one of those instances where one gets a watch primarily for the technical wizardry of the movement.


----------



## wschertz

It seems a lot of people separate "luxury" and "high-end" watches as two separate categories. IMHO anything priced over what your average consumer would deem acceptable for a watch is a "luxury" purchase, and "high-end" is simply the uppermost tier. And while some of the upper mid-range players overlap into the high-end market with certain offerings, I think in most cases the overall brand identity is relatively easy to categorize based on a company's "typical" watch. But then again, I don't actually own any high-end pieces myself, so who am I to say. In any case, I got bored and made a modified version of the infamous Chronocentric (http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml) chart. This is how I see it. Your mileage may vary. Feel free to bash to your heart's content. =)

​ · *High-end Luxury - approximate starting price of $6,000*
o *Details:* Watches in this range are primarily produced in small numbers with either fully in-house or a mix of in-house and highly modified mechanical movements. Timepieces are at least partially handcrafted and feature highly decorated movements and superbly finished cases/bracelets, which are often made from precious metals, but also may come in steel.

o *Brands:* Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, A Lange & Sohne, Vacheron Constantin, JLC, Blancpain, Breguet, Glashutte Original

· *Upper Mid-range Luxury - approximate starting price of $3,500*

o *Details:* Watches in this range are generally mass-produced, but not in all cases. Timepieces at the lower end of the range are usually machine-made, while higher-end models may be partially or completely handcrafted. Movements are mechanical, well-decorated and are made in-house or are highly modified from sourced movements. Cases and bracelets are made of high-quality steel or precious metals and are well-finished.

o *Brands:* IWC, Zenith, Rolex, Cartier, Grand Seiko, Panerai

· *Lower Mid-range Luxury - approximate starting price of $1,500*
o *Details:* Watches in this range are generally mass-produced using modified movements, but some offerings feature in-house movements. Timepieces throughout the range are machine-made-with few exceptions-and feature well-finished cases/bracelets manufactured using high-quality steel or precious metals. Movements are mostly mechanical and decorated, but some brands also offer quartz models.

o *Brands:* Omega, TAG Heuer, Breitling, Bell & Ross, Tudor, Sinn, Ball, Baume & Mercier, Frederique Constant

· *Entry Level Luxury - approximate starting price of $1,000*
o *Details:* Watches in this range are mass-produced using both modified and unmodified sourced movements. Timepieces throughout the range are machine-made and feature adequately finished cases/bracelets, which are primarily of steel construction. Some models are PVD gold-coated, but few are actually made from precious metals. Movements are most often mechanical-some decorated and some not-but several brands also offer quartz models.

o *Brands:* Oris, Longines, Ebel, Raymond Weil, Rado, Fortis

· *Pseudo Luxury - approximate starting price of $500*
o *Details:* Watches in this range are mass-produced "mall watches" using unmodified sourced movements. Timepieces throughout the range are machine-made and feature adequately finished cases/bracelets, which are primarily of steel construction. Some models are PVD gold-coated, but few are actually made from precious metals. Watch crystals may include sapphire or synthetic glass. Movements are a mix of undecorated mechanical and quartz offerings.

o *Brands:* Hamilton, Tissot, Mido, Movado, Bulova Accutron, Bulova Precisionist, Citizen Signature


----------



## Rdenney

Only problem is, those price points are obsolete. Most Zeniths, even my simple Captain Chrono, are priced well into the first group if price is the only guide. 

Rick "who does not think his Captain is really a high-end watch, but it's close" Denney


----------



## Watchbreath

:-( Now 'tiers' are here.


----------



## PunkJr

The problem with tiers is that it's all about perception and reputation. Take a snapshot of what Rolex have done over the last 40 years, and compare that to TAG over the last 5. TAG are leaving Rolex in their dust when it comes to horological advancement/innovation, but that has done little to stem Rolex's reputation, or enhance TAG's rep amongst the Rolex type crowd.


----------



## heuerolexomega

PunkJr said:


> The problem with tiers is that it's all about perception and reputation. Take a snapshot of what Rolex have done over the last 40 years, and compare that to TAG over the last 5. TAG are leaving Rolex in their dust when it comes to horological advancement/innovation, but that has done little to stem Rolex's reputation, or enhance TAG's rep amongst the Rolex type crowd.


Yes it's not fair :-(, the same story with Ulysse Nardin (against the holy trinity) but like I always say " It is what it is"


----------



## Rdenney

Watchbreath said:


> :-( Now 'tiers' are here.


It must be admitted that tiers are built into this subforum. It is a forum devoted to one such. And that's why this thread has persisted without real resolution--it demonstrates that tier definitions will never reach consensus.

Rick "there is no 'high end' without tiers"
Denney


----------



## TK-421

Omega is not Lower Mid Range Luxury. Panerai and IWC are not superior to Omega. Sinn is a great watch case, but is not mid level luxury. Bell & Ross uses pedestrian movements. Longines needs to be bumped up, as well as Omega, and Sinn and Ball need to go down a notch.

There that's better.



wschertz said:


> It seems a lot of people separate "luxury" and "high-end" watches as two separate categories. IMHO anything priced over what your average consumer would deem acceptable for a watch is a "luxury" purchase, and "high-end" is simply the uppermost tier. And while some of the upper mid-range players overlap into the high-end market with certain offerings, I think in most cases the overall brand identity is relatively easy to categorize based on a company's "typical" watch. But then again, I don't actually own any high-end pieces myself, so who am I to say. In any case, I got bored and made a modified version of the infamous Chronocentric (http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/brands.shtml) chart. This is how I see it. Your mileage may vary. Feel free to bash to your heart's content. =)
> 
> ​ · *High-end Luxury - approximate starting price of $6,000*
> o *Details:* Watches in this range are primarily produced in small numbers with either fully in-house or a mix of in-house and highly modified mechanical movements. Timepieces are at least partially handcrafted and feature highly decorated movements and superbly finished cases/bracelets, which are often made from precious metals, but also may come in steel.
> 
> o *Brands:* Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, A Lange & Sohne, Vacheron Constantin, JLC, Blancpain, Breguet, Glashutte Original
> 
> · *Upper Mid-range Luxury - approximate starting price of $3,500*
> 
> o *Details:* Watches in this range are generally mass-produced, but not in all cases. Timepieces at the lower end of the range are usually machine-made, while higher-end models may be partially or completely handcrafted. Movements are mechanical, well-decorated and are made in-house or are highly modified from sourced movements. Cases and bracelets are made of high-quality steel or precious metals and are well-finished.
> 
> o *Brands:* IWC, Zenith, Rolex, Cartier, Grand Seiko, Panerai
> 
> · *Lower Mid-range Luxury - approximate starting price of $1,500*
> o *Details:* Watches in this range are generally mass-produced using modified movements, but some offerings feature in-house movements. Timepieces throughout the range are machine-made-with few exceptions-and feature well-finished cases/bracelets manufactured using high-quality steel or precious metals. Movements are mostly mechanical and decorated, but some brands also offer quartz models.
> 
> o *Brands:* Omega, TAG Heuer, Breitling, Bell & Ross, Tudor, Sinn, Ball, Baume & Mercier, Frederique Constant
> 
> · *Entry Level Luxury - approximate starting price of $1,000*
> o *Details:* Watches in this range are mass-produced using both modified and unmodified sourced movements. Timepieces throughout the range are machine-made and feature adequately finished cases/bracelets, which are primarily of steel construction. Some models are PVD gold-coated, but few are actually made from precious metals. Movements are most often mechanical-some decorated and some not-but several brands also offer quartz models.
> 
> o *Brands:* Oris, Longines, Ebel, Raymond Weil, Rado, Fortis
> 
> · *Pseudo Luxury - approximate starting price of $500*
> o *Details:* Watches in this range are mass-produced "mall watches" using unmodified sourced movements. Timepieces throughout the range are machine-made and feature adequately finished cases/bracelets, which are primarily of steel construction. Some models are PVD gold-coated, but few are actually made from precious metals. Watch crystals may include sapphire or synthetic glass. Movements are a mix of undecorated mechanical and quartz offerings.
> 
> o *Brands:* Hamilton, Tissot, Mido, Movado, Bulova Accutron, Bulova Precisionist, Citizen Signature


----------



## wschertz

TK-421 said:


> Omega is not Lower Mid Range Luxury. Panerai and IWC are not superior to Omega. Sinn is a great watch case, but is not mid level luxury. Bell & Ross uses pedestrian movements. Longines needs to be bumped up, as well as Omega, and Sinn and Ball need to go down a notch.
> 
> There that's better.


You make a good point with Sinn and Ball. I was back-and-forth on where I thought those belonged. I'll go ahead and side with you there. And Omega too, I suppose. I also struggled with that one. My hang-up was that while the company has definitely moved into the upper mid-range with the 8500 movement, a lot of their offerings are still modified ETAs and quartz watches. Granted, I think the co-axial movement is about as modified as you can get.

That leaves Longines. The brand has a great history, but outside of maybe their Master collection (specifically the Retrograde) and the Legend Diver I honestly don't see how their watches are any more prestigious than the ones made by Sinn and Ball.


----------



## Watchbreath

Prestigious with whom? The general public never heard of the other two. I used to sell Longines and they have 
pretty much made it back, but I don't think they'll have the name they once had.


wschertz said:


> You make a good point with Sinn and Ball. I was back-and-forth on where I thought those belonged. I'll go ahead and side with you there. And Omega too, I suppose. I also struggled with that one. My hang-up was that while the company has definitely moved into the upper mid-range with the 8500 movement, a lot of their offerings are still modified ETAs and quartz watches. Granted, I think the co-axial movement is about as modified as you can get.
> 
> That leaves Longines. The brand has a great history, but outside of maybe their Master collection (specifically the Retrograde) and the Legend Diver I honestly don't see how their watches are any more prestigious than the ones made by Sinn and Ball.


----------



## PunkJr

The whole tier system is just our own perceptions based on clever marketing. Have you ever hear of a Rolex Daytona 6263 aka. Paul Newman being called a fashion watch? Well it runs a bought in movement, and it is far more desirable than the Rolex in-house chrono movement currently available. Yet a Tag or a Panerai are bashed because they run fairly pedestrian (or used to) ETA movements. Rolex have done NOTHING to advance horology in over 50 years, yet with clever marketing, they have remained at the top of the heap of the so called mid-tier manufacturers. Yet we have TAG producing chronos accurate to 1/100th of a second whilst Rolex fanboys are arguing over solid end links and glidelock clasps.

I own a fairly old Submariner, and it's a great watch that suits my lifestyle, but hardly think that it's any better than an Omega Seamaster Tudor Blackbay. Fair to say that a Grand Seiko Springdrive is a far more advanced and better finished watch, but with the Seiko stigma.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

PunkJr said:


> The whole tier system is just our own perceptions based on clever marketing. Have you ever hear of a Rolex Daytona 6263 aka. Paul Newman being called a fashion watch? Well it runs a bought in movement, and it is far more desirable than the Rolex in-house chrono movement currently available. Yet a Tag or a Panerai are bashed because they run fairly pedestrian (or used to) ETA movements. Rolex have done NOTHING to advance horology in over 50 years, yet with clever marketing, they have remained at the top of the heap of the so called mid-tier manufacturers. Yet we have TAG producing chronos accurate to 1/100th of a second whilst Rolex fanboys are arguing over solid end links and glidelock clasps.
> 
> I own a fairly old Submariner, and it's a great watch that suits my lifestyle, but hardly think that it's any better than an Omega Seamaster Tudor Blackbay. Fair to say that a Grand Seiko Springdrive is a far more advanced and better finished watch, but with the Seiko stigma.


I respectfully disagree, contribution to the horological world is just one of the many aspects that make a watch high end, history and perceived prestige are others. Is perceived prestige impacted by marketing? Of course it is, but that's it. If marketing was the sole creator or perceived value, then Tag would be on top of this ranking too


----------



## shnjb

Nobody thinks the daytona is high end

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## cedargrove

PunkJr said:


> Rolex have done NOTHING to advance horology in over 50 years,....


??? What about the silicon hairspring currently used by Patek, Breguet, and Omega? That was jointly developed by Rolex, Patek and Swatch. And what about the parachrom hairspring that Rolex subsequently invented because of the difficulties in forming an overcoil with silicon. Those are just a couple of examples.


----------



## wschertz

Watchbreath said:


> Prestigious with whom? The general public never heard of the other two. I used to sell Longines and they have
> pretty much made it back, but I don't think they'll have the name they once had.


I mean among watch enthusiasts. I wouldn't use the general public's knowledge of a brand as any kind of measuring stick. Certainly more people have heard of Rolex than ALS, but I don't think you'd find many around here who would argue that Rolex is higher end. In the same vein, I suspect a Longines vs. Ball thread on WUS would get a lot of mixed responses because with these two brands it really comes down to personal preference. They're both aimed at the same buyers, with most of their pieces selling between $1,000 and $4,000. Actually, Longines' cheapest watch retails for something like $600 less than the cheapest offered by Ball. No, price isn't the only determinant, but I do think you have to give some weight to where the company is positioning their brand in the market. Even Swatch Group ranks Longines below Omega and in the same category as Rado. They just have different names for the categories:Swiss made watch


----------



## TK-421

we begs to disagrees, da rolexes daytonas arz almost az classy az we iz....oooOOOOOOHHH!!!





shnjb said:


> Nobody thinks the daytona is high end
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Watchbreath

:-s "nobody" :-d


shnjb said:


> Nobody thinks the daytona is high end
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## westlake




----------



## TK-421

daytona is a quality watch, more sporty than classy.


----------



## Ric Capucho

AaaVee said:


> This is my proposal how to rate different brands. Criteria is 1) history of the brand & recognition 2) technical complexity/quality 3) price.
> I rate brands according to where most of their sold watches belong (e.g. no point to put brand in hi-end if they produce tourbillon, but most of the watches sold are modified ETAs - I hope you get idea). It's impossible to justify why brand on the next row is less important, but trend should be visible in +/- 5 rows.
> Of course any such list is somehow subjective and biased, but I tried to stay objective.
> 
> View attachment 695234
> 
> 
> *HI-END* (old history, complicated movements, highly decorated, typical price 10kEUR+)
> 
> Patek Philippe
> Vacheron Constantin
> Breguet
> A.Lange & Sohne
> Audemars Piguet
> Jaeger-LeCoultre
> Blancpain
> FP Journe
> Glashutte Original
> Gerald Genta
> Girard-Perregaux
> 
> View attachment 695235
> 
> 
> *HI-TECH / INDEPENDENT* (innovative solutions, exotic materials, often quite new companies, but high prices 15k-300kEUR, listed in no particular order)
> 
> Richard Mille
> Harry Winston
> MB&F
> Urwerk
> Voutilainen
> Romaine Jerome
> De Grisogono
> Habring
> Hautlence
> Konstantin Chaykin
> Sarpaneva
> Speake-Marin
> Thomas Prescher
> Gronefeld
> Devon
> 
> View attachment 695236
> 
> 
> *PREMIUM *(well known manufacturers, perfect quality, some got in-house movements, typical price 2-10k EUR)
> 
> IWC
> Rolex
> Omega
> Ulysse Nardin
> Frank Muller
> Panerai
> Zenith
> Piaget
> Cartier
> Hublot
> Breitling
> Chopard
> Corum
> Tag Heuer
> Bell&Ross
> Nomos
> Chronoswiss
> Baume & Mercier
> Maurice Lacroix
> Perrelet
> Grand Seiko
> Linde Werdelin
> U-Boat
> Longines
> Montblanc
> 
> View attachment 695237
> 
> 
> *QUALITY* watches (entry level swiss watches and alike, typical price 300-3kEUR)
> 
> Rado
> Tissot
> Mido
> Hamilton
> Frederique Constant
> Oris
> Certina
> Raymond Weil
> Sinn
> Fortis
> Seiko
> Revue Thommen
> Bremont
> Stowa
> Junghans
> Movado
> Seagull
> Laco
> Archimede
> Christopher Ward
> Magrette
> Steinhart
> Lum-Tec
> Vostok-Europe
> Kemmner
> 
> View attachment 695238
> 
> 
> *BASIC *(companies that produce watches, quartz or simple chinese mechanical movements, affordable prices)
> 
> Citizen
> Grovana
> TW Steel
> Jacques Lemans
> Swatch
> Skagen
> Festina
> Orient
> Lorus
> Casio
> Q&Q
> HMT
> Parnis
> Tao
> Alpha
> 
> View attachment 695239
> 
> 
> *FASHION *(flashy design - often copying famous designs, mostly quartz movements, typical price 70-500 EUR)
> 
> Emporio Armani
> Calvin Klein
> Diesel
> Nixon
> Guess
> Hugo Boss
> BMW etc.


After nearly sixty pages, there's just one post that makes the best categorisation effort.

Well done.

Ric


----------



## Monocrom

Far from ideal though. Plenty of brands on that list that deserve to be in a higher tier ... And plenty that deserve to be in a lower one.


----------



## GlenRoiland

Monocrom said:


> Far from ideal though. Plenty of brands on that list that deserve to be in a higher tier ... And plenty that deserve to be in a lower one.


True. But a well thought out list indeed.


----------



## GETS

Monocrom said:


> Far from ideal though. Plenty of brands on that list that deserve to be in a higher tier ... And plenty that deserve to be in a lower one.


Maybe just my perception but I thought of the groupings as categories as opposed to tiers? I think there is a subtle difference.


----------



## Ric Capucho

I propose a second thread, but dealing with the categories and tiers first... gimme a moment.

Ric


----------



## iim7v7im7

Watches are high-end, not brands. Many brands are heterogenius in their product make-up having some high-end pieces. As a brand begins to have a higher percentage of pieces that are high-end we begin to assign attributes properly assigned to watches to brands. Much of our perception of brand is influenced by factors beyond the watch.


----------



## heuerolexomega

If the tittle of the forum change from "High End Watches Forum" to High End Brands Forum" then this thread would have more weight.


----------



## Monocrom

GETS said:


> Maybe just my perception but I thought of the groupings as categories as opposed to tiers? I think there is a subtle difference.


Even as categories, quite a few of the brands are in the wrong spots.

Just a handful of examples:

1) Citizen below Seiko when both are equal in terms of automatic movements. Seiko's quality ranges from good to excellent. But Citizen's Eco-Drive movement is incredible and trumpts Seiko's few solar-powered models.

2) Vostok better than Parnis, Tao, and Alpha. True, Vostok owners love their timepieces. But none have ever claimed that the quality would rival bigger and better known brands. Vostok belongs in the same category as Tao and those others, easily.

3) Casio lumped together with Parnis, Tao, and Alpha. Yes, it's mostly Casio's excellent G-Shock line that easily propels it to a higher category. And yes, many don't think of Casio when they think G-Shock. Still, Casio is responsible for that line of digital quartz watches that American soldiers count on when things get ugly.

4) I know I'll catch Hell for this, but open up a TAG Heuer Aquaracer, open up a Seiko SKX007; and the quality of both will be on par. Though the Seiko is about $200 while an Aquaracer WAN2110 is now $2500. (Once again, if we were talking about just a Price-tier List of brands; the list above would be spot-on. In terms of quality, innovation, attention to detail ... different story.)

5) Damasko didn't even make the list. Innovation alone would put it up there. Construction and build-quality too. A brand founded by a true enthusiast who arguably is able to fund it and his watch obsession thanks to a very profitable other business that he runs. Plus, one of the best bargains in quality watches out there.

Yes, the categories list was a good effort and some of the brands on it were placed perfectly. But it's far from perfect itself or close to it.


----------



## germanshepherd72

Spit, I`m with you on your assessment. Spot on.


----------



## shnjb

Monocrom said:


> Even as categories, quite a few of the brands are in the wrong spots.
> 
> Just a handful of examples:
> 
> 1) Citizen below Seiko when both are equal in terms of automatic movements. Seiko's quality ranges from good to excellent. But Citizen's Eco-Drive movement is incredible and trumpts Seiko's few solar-powered models.
> 
> 2) Vostok better than Parnis, Tao, and Alpha. True, Vostok owners love their timepieces. But none have ever claimed that the quality would rival bigger and better known brands. Vostok belongs in the same category as Tao and those others, easily.
> 
> 3) Casio lumped together with Parnis, Tao, and Alpha. Yes, it's mostly Casio's excellent G-Shock line that easily propels it to a higher category. And yes, many don't think of Casio when they think G-Shock. Still, Casio is responsible for that line of digital quartz watches that American soldiers count on when things get ugly.
> 
> 4) I know I'll catch Hell for this, but open up a TAG Heuer Aquaracer, open up a Seiko SKX007; and the quality of both will be on par. Though the Seiko is about $200 while an Aquaracer WAN2110 is now $2500. (Once again, if we were talking about just a Price-tier List of brands; the list above would be spot-on. In terms of quality, innovation, attention to detail ... different story.)
> 
> 5) Damasko didn't even make the list. Innovation alone would put it up there. Construction and build-quality too. A brand founded by a true enthusiast who arguably is able to fund it and his watch obsession thanks to a very profitable other business that he runs. Plus, one of the best bargains in quality watches out there.
> 
> Yes, the categories list was a good effort and some of the brands on it were placed perfectly. But it's far from perfect itself or close to it.


You should post your edited version.
Wikipedia improves over multiple rounds of edits.
That list could too.


----------



## movet22

Sorry to jump in on the party a few years too late, but you absolutely HAVE to evaluate high end on a watch by watch basis. 

That said, just a few musings based on catching up on 60 pages:

Omega (as a whole) is absolutely not high end. I think their new 85xx movements are great, but even then, that is a mid tier movement. I would put Omega, Panerai, Breitling, and the like together. I would take Tag and (throw them in the trash  ) group them with Baume et Mercier, and about a gazillion others as whatever comes below Omega, yet above seiko. 

Honestly, we (myself included) should drop the groups and tiers and focus on the individual watches of higher importance. and remember: if you have to ask 'is my watch high end?' chances are it is not.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Maybe is easier to have 2 Sub-forums : 1)Questionable High-End 2) No Doubt High-End


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

heuerolexomega said:


> Maybe is easier to have 2 Sub-forums : 1)Questionable High-End 2) No Doubt High-End


Well good luck populating the "questionable high end forum", with only one we have already a not so active forum, so imagine with two...


----------



## heuerolexomega

Galactic Sushiman said:


> Well good luck populating the "questionable high end forum", with only one we have already a not so active forum, so imagine with two...


You might be surprised of the amount of people that don't post because the possibility/fear that their watch might not be looked as a real "High End"


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

heuerolexomega said:


> You might be surprised of the amount of people that don't post because the possibility/fear that their watch might not be looked as a real "High End"


Maybe, but actually labelling their watch as "questionable high end" (understand "not high end, but nice effort mister") is probably not going to make them proud and talkative


----------



## heuerolexomega

Galactic Sushiman said:


> Maybe, but actually labelling their watch as "questionable high end" (understand "not high end, but nice effort mister") is probably not going to make them proud and talkative


Well it doesn't have to be exactly those words. It can be done nicer, but you get the idea.


----------



## Monocrom

heuerolexomega said:


> You might be surprised of the amount of people that don't post because the possibility/fear that their watch might not be looked as a real "High End"


It's just a bit odd that a WIS wouldn't know if a particular watch of his was or wasn't high-end.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Monocrom said:


> It's just a bit odd that a WIS wouldn't know if a particular watch of his was or wasn't high-end.


I don't think is odd, when I started this hobby I had a clear idea that: Patek,AP,ALS, VC and Breguet where High End, but I really wasn't sure of the rest. I really think they are some shady areas, and that's the reason that this thread has 60 pages.
Correction: 61 pages


----------



## Monocrom

heuerolexomega said:


> I don't think is odd, when I started this hobby I had a clear idea that: Patek,AP,ALS, VC and Breguet where High End, but I really wasn't sure of the rest. I really think they are some shady areas, and that's the reason that this thread has 60 pages.


True. But in fairness, not all of it is simply confusion. As you pointed out, certain brands clearly fall into the High-End category. Others ... Some confusion. But I've noticed a few members simply trying to elevate the status of their chosen brand. It's disingenuous on their part.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Monocrom said:


> True. But in fairness, not all of it is simply confusion. As you pointed out, certain brands clearly fall into the High-End category. Others ... Some confusion. But I've noticed a few members simply trying to elevate the status of their chosen brand. It's disingenuous on their part.


Yes, I have seen people posting Panerai and Omega in the Hi-Ends eye candy thread, really?
Oh well, we will always have some posters like that.,


----------



## Monocrom

Unfortunately true. And that's coming from someone who really likes the new two-dial Omega Speedmaster. Likely my next watch purchase. Beautiful, iconic heritage, very pragmatic for timing everything from a parking meter to laps at the track, looks great with a suit (assuming a strap swap with a nice black leather one). A great choice, honestly.

But I'm realistic about it not being High-End. No need to try to promote it as such. Even without fitting into that category, it's still a great choice. Just unfortunate that some feel the need to promote it as something it's not, despite being a great watch anyway.


----------



## shnjb

Let's find some more non high end watches in high end candy thread. I'm guessing there will be a lot of silly posts like Daytonas


----------



## Dancing Fire

heuerolexomega said:


> *Well it doesn't have to be exactly those words*. It can be done nicer, but you get the idea.


How about "almost high end"??


----------



## heuerolexomega

I like "Border Line High-End".


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

Nobody wants their beloved timepiece which one saved for to be labeled 'almost/borderline/entry level' high end, simply not aspirational enough.

With all due respect this whole idea of 'not really high end' category is not credible in my mind - especially for a forum where people post where they want... It's an interesting concept though.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Galactic Sushiman said:


> Nobody wants their beloved timepiece which one saved for to be labeled 'almost/borderline/entry level' high end, simply not aspirational enough.
> 
> With all due respect this whole idea of 'not really high end' category is not credible in my mind - especially for a forum where people post where they want... It's an interesting concept though.


True, you want your piece to be next to the best, but when you know is not at the level of the big 5 (ALS,PP, AP,VC,Breguet) and you know is a step up to Omega or Rolex then it might make perfect sense to call it something on those lines. It makes perfect sense to me, but you might be right, maybe in the practice is different.


----------



## Rdenney

So far, the most sensible approach I've seen is a dollar figure for the MSRP of the watch being discussed, in its most common version wtihout diamond encrustations. I would say steel only for that determination, but some high-end watches just aren't available in steel.

If the watch is old, then use the present worth of the prior MSRP when it was new based on a consumer-price-index calculator. New watch prices have risen faster than inflation, so it will tend to weed out vintage models, though. Or maybe someone can produce a "watch inflation calculator" based on the actual retail prices of something like a Calatrava that has been in continuous production for many decades, and the publish it to use as a consistent standard.

That would preclude brand snootiness and provide an objective (even if arbitrary--arbitrariness is built into the very concept of a "high-end forum", it seems to me) standard that would at least be clear.

If people want to designate certain companies as being high-end-acceptable even for models that are cheaper, then fine. But that should be the decision of the moderator of this forum. Again, clarity is possible even when consensus is not. If so, I would nominate JLC as the best example of why it might be needed: A JLC Master Ultra Thin seems pretty high-end to me, even though its retail price is a bit lower than my Zenith Captain Chronograph, which I do not consider to be high-end in the sense of this forum. The boutique brands that are too numerous to list (such as Richard Mille or F. P. Journe) would get in on the retail price.

A good dollar amount to consider might be the current retail price of the steel Daytona, plus five dollars, just as a starting point. I think those who own Pateks and Vacherons know that Rolex isn't in the same class, and those who own Rolexes ought to be prepared to admit it. I have no illusions that my Zenith is high-end, for example.

Rick "who has no (expensive) dog in this hunt" Denney


----------



## Monocrom

Dollar amount would make it much easier.

But then you run into the problem of, unlike with a lot of things, no you don't get what you pay for with watches. 

I've seen it happen time and again.


----------



## Rdenney

Monocrom said:


> Dollar amount would make it much easier.
> 
> But then you run into the problem of, unlike with a lot of things, no you don't get what you pay for with watches.
> 
> I've seen it happen time and again.


I'm not talking about what deserves to be called high-end. I'm talking about what mods can use to determine whether it should be discussed in this forum, if the problem is that there is too much discussion of non-high-end watches.

If you are going to try to resolve what deserves to be called high-end, this subforum is doomed to spend all its energies arguing about that (hence, this never-ending thread). If that is the intent, then so be it. But if so, I wouldn't want to be a moderator.

Rick "who moderates other forums and understand the value of clear rules, even if arbitrary" Denney


----------



## heuerolexomega

I know there is the ALS forum, but it just cross me mind that would be kind of neat to have a forum "the big 5". I know this would create other issues but I just want it to mention it.


----------



## Monocrom

Rdenney said:


> I'm not talking about what deserves to be called high-end. I'm talking about what mods can use to determine whether it should be discussed in this forum, if the problem is that there is too much discussion of non-high-end watches.
> 
> If you are going to try to resolve what deserves to be called high-end, this subforum is doomed to spend all its energies arguing about that (hence, this never-ending thread). If that is the intent, then so be it. But if so, I wouldn't want to be a moderator.
> 
> Rick "who moderates other forums and understand the value of clear rules, even if arbitrary" Denney


In that case, it likely would be easiest to just confine discussions in this forum to the 5 recognized High-End brands only.


----------



## shnjb

Monocrom said:


> In that case, it likely would be easiest to just confine discussions in this forum to the 5 recognized High-End brands only.


5 is too narrow.

I think price makes sense.
It has some false positives (diamond studded watches and daytona) but for the most part it is objective.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> 5 is too narrow.
> 
> I think price makes sense.
> It has some false positives (diamond studded watches and daytona) but for the most part it is objective.


I have to respectfully disagree. You're going to get a lot of false positives. Price, as far as watches go, is far from objective. As mentioned earlier, open up a $2500 TAG Heuer Aquaracer vs. a $200 Seiko SKX007, and you notice that both are on par when it comes to the quality of what you see on the inside. So, why the price difference? You have to factor in the cost of TAG Heuer's celebrity Ambassadors who get a helluva lot more than just a free TAG Heuer to wear in exchange for promoting the brand. That's just one aspect. But perhaps is alone large enough to explain the price difference.

However, celebrity endorsements do nothing with regards to the quality of a watch. They don't help out a new owner in any way, shape, or form. And honestly, it's beyond disingenuous that so many watch brands follow the very same play-book for taking their brand "Upscale."

1) Get rid of all quartz offerings.
2) Pull AD status from those businesses that helped make the brand a success in the first place.
3) Open up Boutiques directly controlled by the brand and put an end to discounting.
4) Get at least one high-ranking, glamorous celebrity as an Ambassador.
5) Just jack-up prices now! Keep doing the same thing with no or tiny improvements to the watches themselves.

Worst part is, #5 is usually the very first thing that gets done. That sort of thing should never be encouraged anywhere. Even in a sub-forum on WUS.


----------



## shnjb

Sorry I don't get your tag example.
I think Tag in this particular discussion is irrelevant because it's far from high-end.

I believe that above $10-15k (USD), false positives are not going to be a huge issue.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> Sorry I don't get your tag example.
> I think Tag in this particular discussion is irrelevant because it's far from high-end.
> 
> I believe that above $10-15k (USD), false positives are not going to be a huge issue.


Not implying that TAG Heuer is High-End. Simply used it as an example to illustrate the difference between Price vs. Quality. But even at the $10K-$15K range, there are still going to be more than a couple of pieces that aren't worth that much. I can see it being far less of an issue when you get into the mid-five figure range and Above.


----------



## shnjb

Monocrom said:


> Not implying that TAG Heuer is High-End. Simply used it as an example to illustrate the difference between Price vs. Quality. But even at the $10K-$15K range, there are still going to be more than a couple of pieces that aren't worth that much. I can see it being far less of an issue when you get into the mid-five figure range and Above.


Yeah I think no guidelines can be perfect so we will always have some false positive as to what is "high-end."
Maybe $15000 is not a bad start though.

Most non-WUS forum members will probably think that a Breitling chronograph 1461 calendar watch is high-end.
But on the high-end sub-forum I feel that entry level Pateks and Langes are not really high-end compared to what some members have.

I think it's far more of an issue for 1000-10000 dollar range, where there is a lot of junk.


----------



## Monocrom

I have to agree with you there. Too often, folks forget that every industry has a Top Tier (regardless of what item or goods are being produced). That should be one's standard of comparison. Even going by price alone. In the watch world, $3,000 won't get you a High-End watch. In the custom flashlight world, that same amount will get you a High-End light because $3,000 is where the ceiling is in that industry. All about standard of comparison. An Omega Speedmaster is downright high-end compared a Timex Expedition. But that's the wrong standard to use.


----------



## Ric Capucho

Monocrom said:


> (snip)
> However, celebrity endorsements do nothing with regards to the quality of a watch. They don't help out a new owner in any way, shape, or form. And honestly, it's beyond disingenuous that so many watch brands follow the very same play-book for taking their brand "Upscale."
> 
> 1) Get rid of all quartz offerings.
> 2) Pull AD status from those businesses that helped make the brand a success in the first place.
> 3) Open up Boutiques directly controlled by the brand and put an end to discounting.
> 4) Get at least one high-ranking, glamorous celebrity as an Ambassador.
> 5) Just jack-up prices now! Keep doing the same thing with no or tiny improvements to the watches themselves.
> 
> Worst part is, #5 is usually the very first thing that gets done. That sort of thing should never be encouraged anywhere. Even in a sub-forum on WUS.


I'm not sure why the play book above is such a bad thing. Discounting is the bane of any business, especially the watch business; controlling the quality of service of the retail side of things is (usually) to the good; and most importantly advertising and brand postioning is crucial.

There are many oooooooooold watch companies surviving hand to mouth in Switzerland that very few of us have ever heard of. Some of them are truly high-end but who would know? They don't advertise, they sell via a few obscure (and snooty) shops in Geneva or Zürich or wherever, and the only way anything gets sold is by heavy discounting. When these businesses occasionally wake up (actually, they're more likely to go bust... and then pass into the hands of the next indulgent family member prepared to take on the albatross) they follow the play book route you've outlined.

Yes, you could argue that "in the good old days" you could have picked up the same damn watch at a discounted 60% of the price so the play book's made everything "more expensive". But how exactly would you have ever heard of the watch? And where's the feel good other than the self-satisfaction of surviving the steely gaze of the proprietor of some snotty Zürich shop who looked carefully at your shoes *before* unlocking the shop door; and then the look of contempt when he/she realises you don't speak fluent Swiss-German with a Gold Coast Lake Zürich accent.

Hats off to Tag Heuer, Omega and Rolex in this regard, and yes to the high-end brands for the same. Do yer think (for example) a vintage Siffert Autavia would now be worth $10,000 without the play book? Do you think all the "popular" truly high-ends (and luxury or whatever) would have survived the three decades since the quartz crisis?

To my mind, not such a bad thing.

Just don't understand why Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio don't *wear* the bloody watches. Always shown with the watches wrapped around their palms.

Ric


----------



## shnjb

Orsi75nidf said:


> The AT with the annual calendar complication is definitely a high-end watch in my book


AT? What?


----------



## Monocrom

Honestly was not expecting anyone to think those are great ideas. Okay, let's take them one at a time ...

1) There is something known as High-End quartz. But keep in mind, we're talking about watch brands that want to be perceived as High-End. Not those that already are. How much sense does it make to alienate a big chunk of your core customer base by getting rid of quartz offerings? Especially if some of them are your biggest sellers? Plus, it's not as though it actually turns a luxury brand into a full-on High-End one. It's a perception. More often than not, one put out there by a brand's executives.

2) It's a little thing called not being an absolute scumbag. You don't pull the AD status from independent businesses that have worked hard to make your brand successful not just over the years, but over the decades.

3) It's the watch industry. Sorry, but discounting is a hallmark practice which consumers are used to. Just as they are in the car business. If a typical individual bought a brand new, for example, family sedan; and payed full retail for it ... Everyone he knows would laugh at him. And rightly so! No one pays full retail for the average car. GM tried to pull that boutique-no-discounts BS with their Saturn line of cars. Look what happened there. 10 years, and now Saturn is dead as a brand. 10 years! For a car brand?? Downright pathetic. Now in fairness, more folks seem to be willing to put up with that no-discounts nonsense from watch brands far more than they would from a car brand. "Seem to" being the key words. It would be interesting to see just how many customers walk into a boutique simply to try on a watch in order to make sure it'll be a good fit for them, before going home and ordering that model online from a Grey Market dealer with an excellent reputation. (Honestly, I doubt we'll ever know. Though I'll go out on a limb and say it's not likely an insignificant percentage of shoppers.)

It's one thing if you simply must have a certain model in your collection and it becomes clear that a boutique is your best bet. Let's be realistic though. How often is a WIS or a non-WIS but shrewd buyer going to pay full price for a watch? Even a nice one. Not often. And certainly not if they can find a better price online from a trusted source. It's just something that quite a few watch brands have to learn to deal with ... Consumers expect a discount when they buy a new watch. If you refuse, they'll go elsewhere for a new or a Pre-owned version of it. As a personal example, a little earlier in this topic, I mentioned my growing fascination with the newer 2-dial Omega Speedmaster. I guarantee you, I will not walk into an Omega boutique and pay full price for one. One of the reasons why that will NEVER happen? _*I*_ would laugh at myself if I did that. It's not a Grail. It's not a model I've lusted over for years which is now very difficult to find and the only place I can now get one is at a place with a strict No-Discount policy. True, the recognized High-End brands are not the realm of "bargain hunters." But some choose to go the Pre-owned route there. And it's a perfectly viable option.

4) I'll admit, this can be beneficial if a brand chooses the right celebrity Ambassador who reflects the brand's image and that of the core customer base they are trying to attract. Still, smart consumers realize that part of the high cost of their watch is to pay off that Ambassador or product-placement in movies. It can attract consumers to your brand. But once attracted, you better be able to keep them interested. That's the hard part. Plus, choose the wrong celeb to endorse your product; and you risk actually alienating customers.

5) Does this one really need an explanation? Really?? How about the fact that it's just bull$#!%. And while not every consumer can "smell it." Many can. Even if they still want your offerings, it goes back to #3 and the whole concept of not paying full price. Actually #3 and #5 have a darker side to them ... It's called price-gouging. While great for certain brands who can get away with that garbage, ultimately; among those who appreciate a true High-End watch, their noses are a little too sensitive to the "smell." They're (literally) not going to buy it. Ultimately the recognized, true, High-End brands have a history that is quite different from those who follow the play-book for a short-cut to being seen as "upscale."

As far as TAG Heuer and its Ambassadors go, the watches are worn that way because thay are photoshopped onto their fists. Perhaps so that the same still pictures can be used later on when newer versions of those models are introduced. Just photoshop the new ones over the old.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> AT? What?


Right now I'm smiling AND shaking my head.


----------



## shnjb

Monocrom said:


> Right now I'm smiling AND shaking my head.


Sorry mono, I am genuinely not sure what is going on. What's AT and why are you smiling about it?


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> Sorry mono, I am genuinely not sure what is going on. What's AT and why are you smiling about it?


Oops! My mistake. I honestly thought you were joking a bit.

It's the Omega AquaTerra model. Usually shortened to just AT. I was smiling and shaking my head because you mentioned a few hours back how guys are posting pics. of their Omega watches in another topic in this very sub-forum. (I found the guy's mention of the AT as High-End, to be truly ironic.) Once again, Omega makes excellent watches. I just don't get why some guys insist on trying to promote them as true High-End pieces.


----------



## shnjb

AquaTerra Annual Calendar huh?
i guess this is what you call a borderline watch?
i just looked up this watch and its sticker price seems to be pretty up there (7000+ USD in steel form and higher for precious metals).

Omega isn't exactly your usual high-end brand but annual calendar is usually something found in high-end things.
I am only a newb in knowledge about watchmaking (just bought my first few books on it) so I can't tell whether the movement is worthy of being high-end.



Monocrom said:


> Oops! My mistake. I honestly thought you were joking a bit.
> 
> It's the Omega AquaTerra model. Usually shortened to just AT. I was smiling and shaking my head because you mentioned a few hours back how guys are posting pics. of their Omega watches in another topic in this very sub-forum. (I found it to be truly ironic.) Once again, Omega makes excellent watches. I just don't get why some guys insist on trying to promote them as true High-End pieces.


----------



## Monocrom

This goes back to what I was mentioning earlier in terms of getting a lot of false positives based on a watch's asking-price alone. Depending on price-ranges themselves.


----------



## shnjb

Monocrom said:


> This goes back to what I was mentioning earlier in terms of getting a lot of false positives based on a watch's asking-price alone. Depending on price-ranges themselves.


I don't know under what criterion u would exclude that watch except by brand's currently deteriorating image as a low-end local mall jewelry brand with a silly fictional action hero ambassador (James Bond).


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> I don't know under what criterion u would exclude that watch except by brand's currently deteriorating image as a low-end local mall jewelry brand with a silly fictional action hero ambassador (James Bond).


Omega never really had such an image. Certainly not as low-end or mall jewelry. Yes, they've held onto "Bond" as their Ambassador. And a very significant sum of money was shelled out by Omega in the last Bond movie. An unbelievably huge percentage of the film's budget was thanks to Omega alone. (Compare that to all the free advertising Rolex got when Connery was Bond. They wouldn't even provide him with one of their watches to wear in the films.)

Despite being a fictional character, the Bond films have always been iconic, and they are running particularly hot this generation. Other brands wish they had Bond as their Ambassador.


----------



## shnjb

Well.... It's just that I can't see lange sponsoring James Bond as their guy.


----------



## vandelsand

What about high end Japanese movements like Miyota 9015? Where do they lie in this breakdown?


----------



## Ric Capucho

Monocrom said:


> Honestly was not expecting anyone to think those are great ideas. Okay, let's take them one at a time ...
> 
> 1) There is something known as High-End quartz. But keep in mind, we're talking about watch brands that want to be perceived as High-End. Not those that already are. How much sense does it make to alienate a big chunk of your core customer base by getting rid of quartz offerings? Especially if some of them are your biggest sellers? Plus, it's not as though it actually turns a luxury brand into a full-on High-End one. It's a perception. More often than not, one put out there by a brand's executives.
> 
> 2) It's a little thing called not being an absolute scumbag. You don't pull the AD status from independent businesses that have worked hard to make your brand successful not just over the years, but over the decades.
> 
> 3) It's the watch industry. Sorry, but discounting is a hallmark practice which consumers are used to. Just as they are in the car business. If a typical individual bought a brand new, for example, family sedan; and payed full retail for it ... Everyone he knows would laugh at him. And rightly so! No one pays full retail for the average car. GM tried to pull that boutique-no-discounts BS with their Saturn line of cars. Look what happened there. 10 years, and now Saturn is dead as a brand. 10 years! For a car brand?? Downright pathetic. Now in fairness, more folks seem to be willing to put up with that no-discounts nonsense from watch brands far more than they would from a car brand. "Seem to" being the key words. It would be interesting to see just how many customers walk into a boutique simply to try on a watch in order to make sure it'll be a good fit for them, before going home and ordering that model online from a Grey Market dealer with an excellent reputation. (Honestly, I doubt we'll ever know. Though I'll go out on a limb and say it's not likely an insignificant percentage of shoppers.)
> 
> It's one thing if you simply must have a certain model in your collection and it becomes clear that a boutique is your best bet. Let's be realistic though. How often is a WIS or a non-WIS but shrewd buyer going to pay full price for a watch? Even a nice one. Not often. And certainly not if they can find a better price online from a trusted source. It's just something that quite a few watch brands have to learn to deal with ... Consumers expect a discount when they buy a new watch. If you refuse, they'll go elsewhere for a new or a Pre-owned version of it. As a personal example, a little earlier in this topic, I mentioned my growing fascination with the newer 2-dial Omega Speedmaster. I guarantee you, I will not walk into an Omega boutique and pay full price for one. One of the reasons why that will NEVER happen? _*I*_ would laugh at myself if I did that. It's not a Grail. It's not a model I've lusted over for years which is now very difficult to find and the only place I can now get one is at a place with a strict No-Discount policy. True, the recognized High-End brands are not the realm of "bargain hunters." But some choose to go the Pre-owned route there. And it's a perfectly viable option.
> 
> 4) I'll admit, this can be beneficial if a brand chooses the right celebrity Ambassador who reflects the brand's image and that of the core customer base they are trying to attract. Still, smart consumers realize that part of the high cost of their watch is to pay off that Ambassador or product-placement in movies. It can attract consumers to your brand. But once attracted, you better be able to keep them interested. That's the hard part. Plus, choose the wrong celeb to endorse your product; and you risk actually alienating customers.
> 
> 5) Does this one really need an explanation? Really?? How about the fact that it's just bull$#!%. And while not every consumer can "smell it." Many can. Even if they still want your offerings, it goes back to #3 and the whole concept of not paying full price. Actually #3 and #5 have a darker side to them ... It's called price-gouging. While great for certain brands who can get away with that garbage, ultimately; among those who appreciate a true High-End watch, their noses are a little too sensitive to the "smell." They're (literally) not going to buy it. Ultimately the recognized, true, High-End brands have a history that is quite different from those who follow the play-book for a short-cut to being seen as "upscale."
> 
> As far as TAG Heuer and its Ambassadors go, the watches are worn that way because thay are photoshopped onto their fists. Perhaps so that the same still pictures can be used later on when newer versions of those models are introduced. Just photoshop the new ones over the old.


Well I like your reasoning and perspective, but wonder if culture has something to do with this. There are plenty of expensive products available that're not subject to an expectation of instant discounts. Of course if you come from a discount culture then the mrsp becomes a mockery exactly like US car market. I'd argue that discounting is an evil that does no one any good as it disguises the true worth to the consumer and true (potential for) profitability for the manufacturers and distributors.

Cancelling independent AD partnerships is part and parcel of increasing service and quality at the point of sale. Assuming there *is* an increase in service and quality of course. Can the continued business of some of those independent ADs become harmed? Yep. Is this a fair outcome? Well, I can bet that those same ADs would drop unprofitable brands in an instant. And no one's asking 'em for decades of profits back. So it's a bit like the closure of the town's icicle works, or two out of every three gas stations. It's a shame, harms some, but inevitable. Life goes on.

Brand ambassadors? Well, some brands go for Hollywood a-listers, one goes for the James Bond association (with big photos of Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan before him, so I refer your honour to the Hollywood a-listers) and some just use the watch face itself as the ambassador; they're pretty enough. And *all* of the luxury and high-enders have vast advertisements (human or watch) on every available wallspace of Zürich and Frankfurt airports (and many many more) so none of 'em's immune to the necessity for advertising.

Never thought of the Tag Heuer ambassadors holding the watches for that reason. Amusing if true, but then again I'm sure a Photoshop whizz can do the same with a watch worn on a wrist. Except mine, because the orangutang hairs would be hard to replicate.

Pleased to meet you.

Ric


----------



## iim7v7im7

Life is short and postings such as this one while approaching infinity in length, are no closer to answering the original question because its a false question. This is a "high end watches" forum and not about high end brands. Some brands indeed make higher percentage of watches that might be considered high end in their construction. High end watches are made indeed made by a variety of makers. 

Why post here vs. the public forum, a theme forum or a brand forum? The same questions can be answered in other WUS forums. You might get a more neutral view because the lack of a brand theme. You might find participants with greater first hand experience with a watch in question. The forum seems to be self regulating and if someone posts a question that might be better answered in another flora, it is usually suggested to the OP.

If there is a particular watch of interest, by all means let's discuss it. An endless argument regarding brands, perceptions of prestige, exclusivity or relative ranking rather pointless and usually ends up stepping on someone's toes.


----------



## heuerolexomega

iim7v7im7 said:


> Life is short and postings such as this one while approaching infinity in length, are no closer to answering the original question because its a false question. This is a "high end watches" forum and not about high end brands. Some brands indeed make higher percentage of watches that might be considered high end in their construction. High end watches are made indeed made by a variety of makers.
> 
> Why post here vs. the public forum, a theme forum or a brand forum? The same questions can be answered in other WUS forums. You might get a more neutral view because the lack of a brand theme. You might find participants with greater first hand experience with a watch in question. The forum seems to be self regulating and if someone posts a question that might be better answered in another flora, it is usually suggested to the OP.
> 
> If there is a particular watch of interest, by all means let's discuss it. An endless argument regarding brands, perceptions of prestige, exclusivity or relative ranking rather pointless and usually ends up stepping on someone's toes.


I agree with this, I said that before, in order to make this thread meaningful you will have to change the name of the forum to "High-End brands"


----------



## Ric Capucho

heuerolexomega said:


> I agree with this, I said that before, in order to make this thread meaningful you will have to change the name of the forum to "High-End brands"


The Deep Pockets Forum has a nice ring to it.

Ric


----------



## heuerolexomega

Ric Capucho said:


> The Deep Pockets Forum has a nice ring to it.
> 
> Ric


People can have deep pockets but short arms or even worst small vision (to put it nicely);-)


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> Well.... It's just that I can't see lange sponsoring James Bond as their guy.


Very true. I don't see that happening any time soon (or later).


----------



## shnjb

iim7v7im7 said:


> Life is short and postings such as this one while approaching infinity in length, are no closer to answering the original question because its a false question. This is a "high end watches" forum and not about high end brands. Some brands indeed make higher percentage of watches that might be considered high end in their construction. High end watches are made indeed made by a variety of makers.
> 
> Why post here vs. the public forum, a theme forum or a brand forum? The same questions can be answered in other WUS forums. You might get a more neutral view because the lack of a brand theme. You might find participants with greater first hand experience with a watch in question. The forum seems to be self regulating and if someone posts a question that might be better answered in another flora, it is usually suggested to the OP.
> 
> If there is a particular watch of interest, by all means let's discuss it. An endless argument regarding brands, perceptions of prestige, exclusivity or relative ranking rather pointless and usually ends up stepping on someone's toes.


tl;dr

just kidding. i agree with you.


----------



## Monocrom

vandelsand said:


> What about high-end Japanese movements like Miyota 9015? Where do they lie in this breakdown?


I'm just going to ask directly ... Are you being sarcastic or serious?

If it's the former, okay it wasn't funny but not a bad try. If it's the latter, it's not a high-end movement. It's not garbage either. Competes well with ETA's 2892. It doesn't surpass it though. Also, it's not as though you have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars in order to get a watch with that Miyota movement inside. Definitely an improvement over the Miyota 8215 in terms of accuracy.


----------



## Monocrom

Ric Capucho said:


> Well I like your reasoning and perspective, but wonder if culture has something to do with this. There are plenty of expensive products available that are not subject to an expectation of instant discounts. Of course if you come from a discount culture then the mrsp becomes a mockery exactly like US car market. I'd argue that discounting is an evil that does no one any good as it disguises the true worth to the consumer and true (potential for) profitability for the manufacturers and distributors.


I find it hard to agree that it's a cultural thing or that discounting itself is evil. I've meet individuals who looked for bargains in many parts of the world. In America, expecting a discount of some sort is rare outside of the car or watch industries. (It does happen when shopping at a pawn shop. Though discounting across the board at such places is simply expected. Regardless of the item one is interested in buying.) Not as though folks try to bargain face-to-face with a sales associate when buying clothing, perfume, cuff-links or other accessories. True, they'll likely ask if there's a current sale running on the item(s) they're thinking of purchasing. But if the response is a "No," it's just accepted that the potential buyer can either pay full-price or not buy the item. Far from a cultural thing, it's an accepted industry practice in certain industries. The two biggest examples being the retail car industry and the retail watch industry.

Another aspect is that, there is a belief (and from what I've seen in both industries, rightly so) that car or watch brands have no respect for consumers when they set MSRP. Especially so in the watch industry. Take a look at prices just 5 short years ago compared to now. MSRP on new cars doesn't go up at that high of a rate. It's a game. One that wasn't started by consumers. The mentality is, jack up prices. Expect most consumers to haggle those prices a bit down. Make a bigger profit off of those who are willing to pay at or very close to the over-inflated MSRP. Yes, I agree that things would be better if both consumers and makers agree on the concept of setting a fair price that allowed for good profits for one, as well as an enjoyable and honest experience of said product by the other. Sadly, that not happening anytime soon; anywhere in the world. And definitely not by those brands who have the play-book and are running with it.



> Cancelling independent AD partnerships is part and parcel of increasing service and quality at the point of sale. Assuming there *is* an increase in service and quality of course. Can the continued business of some of those independent ADs become harmed? Yep. Is this a fair outcome? Well, I can bet that those same ADs would drop unprofitable brands in an instant. And no one's asking 'em for decades of profits back. So it's a bit like the closure of the town's icicle works, or two out of every three gas stations. It's a shame, harms some, but inevitable. Life goes on.


What I often see is boutiques being created just to put an end to the accepted custom of discounting. If a customer asks why he can't get any sort of discount at all, it's explained to him that he's at a boutique and not a 3rd-party AD. It's honestly not much of an explanation. Despite once again, Saturn being a dismal failure; the concept of extra friendly service in exchange for full-price payment continues. To me it just seems like an excuse that boutiques are created to increase service, professionalism, and the overall quality of the sales experience. If an AD can't provide any of those things or if their standards drop, they deserve to get their AD status yanked. And indeed that's what happens.

I just find it disgusting that in an effort to put a stop to discounting as an industry-wide practice, hard-working ADs get their status yanked too. That's just not right. Especially at ADs who have consistently generated plenty of revenue for a brand over the years. On top of that, you have some boutiques placed right next to or very close to ADs. Done in an effort to get the place up & running and ready to sell just before one's AD status gets pulled. Those types of practices can't be chalked up as "just business." It's why I don't shop at boutiques. I go to Authorized Dealers. If an AD is unprofessional, yank their status. A boutique is just there to give an extraordinary shopping experience (which many ADs are capable of) in exchange for paying full-price. Honestly, I'll take an average shopping experience and a nice discount instead.


----------



## Rdenney

Gave up on a post that was going nowhere, but it got sent anyway.

Rick "deleted" Denney


----------



## Ric Capucho

Rdenney said:


> Gave up on a post that was going nowhere, but it got sent anyway.
> 
> Rick "deleted" Denney


This is not a post either.

Ric


----------



## Monocrom

LOL

This topic is already filled with too many real posts for us to be adding fake ones.


----------



## TK-421

Can High-End watches be mostly robotic-machine made like Rolex and Omegas? Or do they need to be handcrafted like ALS?


----------



## tony20009

TK-421 said:


> Can High-End watches be *mostly robotic-machine made like Rolex* and Omegas? Or do they need to be handcrafted like ALS?


When did Rolex make a big change in their production process?

See point numbers 3, 8 & 9 here: 10 Things To Know About How Rolex Makes Watches | aBlogtoWatch .

As for my opinion on theme of your question, I don't care whether the maker uses machines or humans to fabricate any or most parts. I know that high quality and consistency can be achieved by both. As far as parts fabrication goes, my gut sense is that making them by machine is considerably more efficient because of the consistency that approach provides.

As with most stuff folks discuss on WUS, there's more to it than is obvious on the face of the inquiry. Watch production, like most manufacturing processes consists of starting with (1) raw materials, (2) using them to produce intermediate assemblies, and (3) combining one or more intermediate assembly to yield finished goods. Humans and machines can be used at various points in the process and there are pros and cons to either approach.

Given the nature of the manufacturing process, I don't think there is a 100% right answer. There might be a 100% right answer in light of a set of specific production and economic constraints. There is definitely a 100% right answer given an individual consumer's specific set of priorities and preferences.

Because of the nature and existence of those two general types of dependencies -- producer and consumer -- I've long advocated that price alone be the distinguishing factor for what should or should not qualify in a broad-appeal forum such as the WUS HEW forum. I don't care what the price is, so long as it's communicated by the forum owner/moderator so that everyone can adhere to it.

All the best.

We shouldn't be looking for heroes, we should be looking for good ideas.
― Noam Chomsky


----------



## mleok

TK-421 said:


> Can High-End watches be mostly robotic-machine made like Rolex and Omegas? Or do they need to be handcrafted like ALS?


I'm not sure that my JLC is appreciably more hand crafted than my Rolex.


----------



## Kluber

I'm relatively newer to joining WUS as a member, but I have always viewed the HEW sub-forum to be strictly based on the price of the watch not the brand or manufacturing process. (With >10k or >15k at the lower end.)

But perhaps I have been misinformed? (It wouldn't be the first time).


----------



## Monocrom

Kluber said:


> I'm relatively newer to joining WUS as a member, but I have always viewed the HEW sub-forum to be strictly based on the price of the watch not the brand or manufacturing process. (With >10k or >15k at the lower end.)
> 
> But perhaps I have been misinformed? (It wouldn't be the first time).


I've seen many items, not just watches, slapped with a high price-tag. Doesn't even remotely mean they're High-End. Just high in price. Most blatant example would be Mont Blanc's Solitaire model made from "precise resin." :roll:

Cheap, thin-barreled, ridiculously fragile pieces of junk that now sell for over $200 each. Meanwhile the level of quality you'd get from a $5 plastic Parker Jotter is significantly better. How do I know? I used to sell pens for a living. About once a week, we'd get an angry customer complaining that they dropped their Solitaire on the sidewalk and it literally shattered. They'd stand there with what was left of their M.B. in one hand, along with the shattered pieces in the other. Luckily, we were literally in a good spot. There was an M.B. shop just above us on the 2nd floor. We'd send the angry customers up there. And oh!.... how the staff up there hated us! Kept asking why we were sending those angry customers upstairs to deal with them.

Hey! Fed up with angry customers giving you a tongue-lashing? Don't sell worthless junk for $200 by trading on your name and company history. (Though being an A.D., obviously we never stated the obvious.)

Credit where it's due, M.B.'s yearly Limited Editions are actually worth the asking-price; in terms of quality. Ever bought a fake Rolex and it turned out to be better quality than the real thing? Of course not! I've literally seen fake M.B. Solitaires that were better than the real thing. The con-men make the plastic barrels a bit too thick. Thus the fakes can actually withstand a short drop to the ground without literally shattering. That's more than a bit sad that a fake Solitaire is better quality than the real thing, at a fraction of the price.

Mont Blanc taught me that High Price and High-End sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Kluber

Monocrom said:


> I've seen many items, not just watches, slapped with a high price-tag. Doesn't even remotely mean they're High-End. Just high in price. Most blatant example would be Mont Blanc's Solitaire model made from "precise resin." :roll:
> 
> Cheap, thin-barreled, ridiculously fragile pieces of junk that now sell for over $200 each. Meanwhile the level of quality you'd get from a $5 plastic Parker Jotter is significantly better. How do I know? I used to sell pens for a living. About once a week, we'd get an angry customer complaining that they dropped their Solitaire on the sidewalk and it literally shattered. They'd stand there with what was left of their M.B. in one hand, along with the shattered pieces in the other. Luckily, we were literally in a good spot. There was an M.B. shop just above us on the 2nd floor. We'd send the angry customers up there. And oh!.... how the staff up there hated us! Kept asking why we were sending those angry customers upstairs to deal with them.
> 
> Hey! Fed up with angry customers giving you a tongue-lashing? Don't sell worthless junk for $200 by trading on your name and company history. (Though being an A.D., obviously we never stated the obvious.)
> 
> Credit where it's due, M.B.'s yearly Limited Editions are actually worth the asking-price; in terms of quality. Ever bought a fake Rolex and it turned out to be better quality than the real thing? Of course not! I've literally seen fake M.B. Solitaires that were better than the real thing. The con-men make the plastic barrels a bit too thick. Thus the fakes can actually withstand a short drop to the ground without literally shattering. That's more than a bit sad that a fake Solitaire is better quality than the real thing, at a fraction of the price.
> 
> Mont Blanc taught me that High Price and High-End sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


I don't disagree. High End and expensive don't necessarily correlate.

I may still view price as a decent baseline on luxury watches for this sub-forum, but it is by no means a method that everyone needs to follow, or that it is even correct for that matter. Just my own thoughts and baseline.

Edit - I do own a Mont Blanc Meisterstuck Tribute ballpoint but, for the record, my pens of choice are fisher space pens. ; )


----------



## HRC-E.B.

Monocrom said:


> I've seen many items, not just watches, slapped with a high price-tag. Doesn't even remotely mean they're High-End. Just high in price. Most blatant example would be Mont Blanc's Solitaire model made from "precise resin." :roll:
> 
> Cheap, thin-barreled, ridiculously fragile pieces of junk that now sell for over $200 each. Meanwhile the level of quality you'd get from a $5 plastic Parker Jotter is significantly better. How do I know? I used to sell pens for a living. About once a week, we'd get an angry customer complaining that they dropped their Solitaire on the sidewalk and it literally shattered. They'd stand there with what was left of their M.B. in one hand, along with the shattered pieces in the other. Luckily, we were literally in a good spot. There was an M.B. shop just above us on the 2nd floor. We'd send the angry customers up there. And oh!.... how the staff up there hated us! Kept asking why we were sending those angry customers upstairs to deal with them.
> 
> Hey! Fed up with angry customers giving you a tongue-lashing? Don't sell worthless junk for $200 by trading on your name and company history. (Though being an A.D., obviously we never stated the obvious.)
> 
> Credit where it's due, M.B.'s yearly Limited Editions are actually worth the asking-price; in terms of quality. Ever bought a fake Rolex and it turned out to be better quality than the real thing? Of course not! I've literally seen fake M.B. Solitaires that were better than the real thing. The con-men make the plastic barrels a bit too thick. Thus the fakes can actually withstand a short drop to the ground without literally shattering. That's more than a bit sad that a fake Solitaire is better quality than the real thing, at a fraction of the price.
> 
> Mont Blanc taught me that High Price and High-End sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


I have a small crack in the "precious resin" of my Montblanc Meisterstuck large size that my parents gave me at my graduation from law school many years ago. I was wondering how much it would cost to have it repaired, given the purely sentimental value of the piece.

I looked on the Montblanc website to find out with astonishment that this simple plastic ball pen now sells for $460!!! That's crazy. I have no idea how much the replacement part would cost, but I can only imagine it would be an arm and a leg...


----------



## TK-421

You need to read between the lines. You don't make 1 million watches per year by hand. Mostly hand assembled is what they say. This goes to the Swiss made argument. The movement is dropped in a case. Voila! Where did the movement come from? Rolex has state of the art robots making the watches. Humans, mostly, put them together. What did they put together? A robotic made bracelet, robotic made case, movement hand made? Rolex is obessed with quality, they will trust robots over humans. I am not disagreeing in their quality. I own an Omega that was made in this process, I am not under the impression that a watchmakers spent hours putting this together.

My question is mainly, do people associate the watchmaker hand finishing parts as part of the high-end experience.



tony20009 said:


> When did Rolex make a big change in their production process?
> 
> See point numbers 3, 8 & 9 here: 10 Things To Know About How Rolex Makes Watches | aBlogtoWatch .
> 
> As for my opinion on theme of your question, I don't care whether the maker uses machines or humans to fabricate any or most parts. I know that high quality and consistency can be achieved by both. As far as parts fabrication goes, my gut sense is that making them by machine is considerably more efficient because of the consistency that approach provides.
> 
> As with most stuff folks discuss on WUS, there's more to it than is obvious on the face of the inquiry. Watch production, like most manufacturing processes consists of starting with (1) raw materials, (2) using them to produce intermediate assemblies, and (3) combining one or more intermediate assembly to yield finished goods. Humans and machines can be used at various points in the process and there are pros and cons to either approach.
> 
> Given the nature of the manufacturing process, I don't think there is a 100% right answer. There might be a 100% right answer in light of a set of specific production and economic constraints. There is definitely a 100% right answer given an individual consumer's specific set of priorities and preferences.
> 
> Because of the nature and existence of those two general types of dependencies -- producer and consumer -- I've long advocated that price alone be the distinguishing factor for what should or should not qualify in a broad-appeal forum such as the WUS HEW forum. I don't care what the price is, so long as it's communicated by the forum owner/moderator so that everyone can adhere to it.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> We shouldn't be looking for heroes, we should be looking for good ideas.
> ― Noam Chomsky


----------



## tony20009

TK-421 said:


> You need to read between the lines. You don't make 1 million watches per year by hand. Mostly hand assembled is what they say. This goes to the Swiss made argument. The movement is dropped in a case. Voila! Where did the movement come from? Rolex has state of the art robots making the watches. Humans, mostly, put them together. What did they put together? A robotic made bracelet, robotic made case, movement hand made? Rolex is obessed with quality, they will trust robots over humans. I am not disagreeing in their quality. I own an Omega that was made in this process, I am not under the impression that a watchmakers spent hours putting this together.
> 
> My question is mainly, *do people associate the watchmaker hand finishing parts as part of the high-end experience.*


Hand finishing parts is, IMO, emblematic of a HEW, but I also don't see it as a requirement for a watch to qualify as being a HEW.

FWIW, I'm not of a mind to quibble over whether a machine or a human assembles the parts of a movement to create that movement. My gut says that robots are better suited to the dropping of a movement into a case than they are to assembling the movement from various tiny parts. But that's just me.

Swatch has shown that an entire movement of a sort can be fabricated and assembled by machines so stressing over just which parts of Rolex's process are automated and which are manual isn't worth it because if Swatch's pioneering move with machine made movements can be extrapolated to more complex movements than the one in a Sistem 51, eventually all watch companies will automate the whole process, if only to remain competitive. Sure, the individual makers like Dufour will still do it by hand, but then look at what his watches cost now. One can buy seven or eight Rolexes for the price of one entry level Dufour.

All the best.


----------



## TK-421

well said.



tony20009 said:


> Hand finishing parts is, IMO, emblematic of a HEW, but I also don't see it as a requirement for a watch to qualify as being a HEW.
> 
> FWIW, I'm not of a mind to quibble over whether a machine or a human assembles the parts of a movement to create that movement. My gut says that robots are better suited to the dropping of a movement into a case than they are to assembling the movement from various tiny parts. But that's just me.
> 
> Swatch has shown that an entire movement of a sort can be fabricated and assembled by machines so stressing over just which parts of Rolex's process are automated and which are manual isn't worth it because if Swatch's pioneering move with machine made movements can be extrapolated to more complex movements than the one in a Sistem 51, eventually all watch companies will automate the whole process, if only to remain competitive. Sure, the individual makers like Dufour will still do it by hand, but then look at what his watches cost now. One can buy seven or eight Rolexes for the price of one entry level Dufour.
> 
> All the best.


----------



## WTSP

It's not about the brands, it's in each piece.

Any watch that has a combination of:
A) Many complications and/or a high degree of technological complexity in the execution of its functions
B) A precious metal case
C) A high level of movement finishing
...is a high end watch, regardless of brand. Everything beyond this is subject to debate.


----------



## tigerpac

Though honestly I wish this thread would just die, I do like your factors test.

Though things like the PP 5711 or a Royal Oak would sorta be problematic.

1. Not complicated nor anything particularly great about the movement. Nothing wrong with it, quite good in fact, but nothing complicated so wouldn't check this box.
2. SS case
3. Does have a high level of movement finish but nothing spectacular. But absolutely give it this category.

So is 1 out of 3 categories enough?

Just spit balling.



WTSP said:


> It's not about the brands, it's in each piece.
> 
> Any watch that has a combination of:
> A) Many complications and/or a high degree of technological complexity in the execution of its functions
> B) A precious metal case
> C) A high level of movement finishing
> ...is a high end watch, regardless of brand. Everything beyond this is subject to debate.


----------



## Spangles

Agreed, it's a garbage thread.

Anyone who disagrees, just buy me a lady's quartz patek.


----------



## WTSP

tigerpac said:


> Though honestly I wish this thread would just die,





Spangles said:


> Agreed, it's a garbage thread.


I know, I know... I just couldn't help but add my two cents. Maybe this thread will remain dormant for another two years before being revived again by TK-421.


----------

