# Is Breguet up there with PP, AP, ALS, VC??



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Those 4 watch companies seem to be often mentioned in the same breath - just curious is there a reason Breguet seems to be often omitted, or are people just being forgetful?


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

I mention Breguet in the same class and always consider them one of the big 5.

Maybe the reason some others put them towards the bottom of the list (in terms of the big 5) is because you can pick up some of their more affordable models for very good prices in comparison to the other 4? For example I bought a used, fully warranted Type XXI Transatlantique for £4,250. I would wager that if I went out to buy a Type XX Aeronavale then I could get one for closer to £3,000? It's hard to pick up *any* model by PP, AP, ALS or VC for that kind of money.


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

Breguet produces watches of comparable quality to any of these companies. I would conjecture that many WIS do not share equal enthusiasm for Breguet because:

*1) In-House Movement Marketing Craze:* Breguet is not as transparent in its marketing regarding the calibres that it uses, which is a mixture of newer in-house, historic Frederic Piguet and Lemania calibres. WIS are interested in these details which Breguet does not communicate like its peers. About 5-years ago, Swatchgroup rebranded Frederic Piguet as Blancpain and Lemania as Montres Breguet to reinforce the in-house marketing ethos. Objectively, by design and finish; they use stellar movements.

*2) Continuous History of Excellence: *It is a brand that does not have a consistent record of excellence. While named after arguably the greatest watchmaker of all time, the ownership across the centuries has not always produced watches of a quality representative of their namesake. Since purchased by the Hayeks (Swatchgroup) 15 years ago, this has been the vision. The watches produced by Breguet today are as fine as any of their peers.

Of the names that you asked about. ALS is the most similar to Breguet. Both are brands with non-continuous history, reborn in the modern era, funded by conglomerates based upon the vision of executives (Gunther Blumlein and Nicolas Hayek). ALS is adored and Breguet not so much. Some of this has to do with marketing and personality. I think ALS markets to wealthy watch enthusiasts and Breguet markets to wealthy non-WIS.


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

Breguet is SG's equivalent to Richemont's ALS and VC.

I, too, consider them one of the best amongst the conglomerate-owned high-end brands.

One of the reasons may be because of a lack of advertising and/or marketing by Swatch Group. You don't see many Breguet ads in social media or printed articles.
For some strange reason, SG is more focused on promoting Omega and their other lower-end brands.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

iim7v7im7 said:


> Breguet produces watches of comparable quality to any of these companies. I would conjecture that many WIS do not share equal enthusiasm for Breguet because:
> 
> *1) In-House Movement Marketing Craze:* Breguet is not as transparent in its marketing regarding the calibres that it uses, which is a mixture of newer in-house, historic Frederic Piguet and Lemania calibres. WIS are interested in these details which Breguet does not communicate like its peers. About 5-years ago, Swatchgroup rebranded Frederic Piguet as Blancpain and Lemania as Montres Breguet to reinforce the in-house marketing ethos. Objectively, by design and finish; they use stellar movements.
> 
> ...


^^ All that plus ALS' resurrection was heralded by the Lange 1, which was seen as nothing short of divine in the WIS world. My 2¢.

All the best.

Fate has her golden sons, and her bastards.
- Jennifer Mardoll, _The Sarrington Estate_


----------



## PremierCurrency (Dec 5, 2013)

I agree with Gets. If there is "top 5", Breguet belongs without question, imo.

On a slightly different note, among the least of my concerns when judging a watch company is an uninterrupted history.


----------



## Paulo 8135 (Mar 29, 2012)

Thanks people, interesting replies!


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

In short, your decision between most competing models between ALS, AP, Breguet, PP or VC has to due with styling or feature preference vs. the quality of the watches between the brands. Issues regarding perceived brand prestige or resale value is a whole other subject.


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

entropy96 said:


> One of the reasons may be because of a lack of advertising and/or marketing by Swatch Group. You don't see many Breguet ads in social media or printed articles.
> For some strange reason, SG is more focused on promoting Omega and their other lower-end brands.


It is simple marketing strategy; Omega is a different class of customer than Breguet. Marketing something like Omega does, by running ads and paying movie producers to have an actor playing James Bond wear it, attracts customers of a certain class of judgement, which includes valuing having a popularly known watch that is very recognizable. For example, if you are wearing the Skyfall Aqua Terra, you can justify having bought it to your male friends (who demand to know why you don't use your cell phone to tell time?) by saying it is James Bond's. That makes this class of customer cool and socially acceptable.

Whereas, the high-end (male) customer would avoid something that is too well-known and prefer a more subtle approach. So running Breguet ads in Men's Fitness (next to the "get six-pack abs in 2 days or less" articles) or paying blonde-haired square-jawed British actors to wear a "movie" version of Tradition (with a bright blue dial, bright red gears, &c) and call it the "La Skyfall" Tradition model would end up making us say "Dr No" to the brand and to go elsewhere, to some climate-controlled boutique with live string-quartet music and where the grubby hands of Tourneau SA's & shoppers have not yet been.


----------



## Tick Talk (May 14, 2010)

PremierCurrency said:


> On a slightly different note, among the least of my concerns when judging a watch company is an uninterrupted history.


This factor takes on much greater importance when considering vintage timepieces, particularly with the availability of Manufacture records. FWIW, I too love Breguet


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

entropy96 said:


> Breguet is SG's equivalent to *Richemont's* ALS and VC.
> 
> I, too, consider them one of the best amongst the *conglomerate-owned* high-end brands.
> 
> ...


When I look at Richemont Group (RG), I see a luxury, consumer goods conglomerate. When I look at Swatch, I see a watch conglomerate. The two are similar, but different. One of the differences is that Swatch clearly has a brand, Omega, positioned to take on the bull in the bauble boutique, Rolex. I guess one could view several of Richemont's brands as anti-Rolex brands, but only in the sense that Richemont has offerings that are close in price and general style to Rolex's offerings. One difference is that Richemont's watch brands all compete in the "haute horology" (HH) space.

*Not so strange, IMO*
I think SG's strategy of promoting Omega and it's less pricey brands makes sense. Omega can hold it's own against most anything until one ventures into the HH space, although Omega does offer a few HH products in its De Ville line. While Omega is not HH primarily, it doesn't need to be. What it needs to be, to battle Rolex, is be the first or second brand name in people's mind. Omega is doing a fine job of achieving that.

Also, Omega offers very solid products in a huge range of prices from just below $2K to about $9K or so (not considering gem studded and precious metal items). That makes them a "step up" brand for consumers of many stripes. From a sales viewpoint, that's a very good thing to be. When one also considers the value proposition offered by an Omega watch, they are all the more attractive and thus it makes perfect sense to capitalize and build upon it rather than let it languish and fade into obscurity.

As for the lower priced brands in SG's portfolio, I think promoting them over Breguet and GO makes sense too. They are surely gong to bring in more money than Breguet on the basis of volume alone. I think it's quite clear why. It's the same reason Walmart, Macy's and Target outsell Neiman Marcus and Saks. One must remember that even though watchies may spend more on individual watches, watchies don't begin to scratch the surface of where the majority of watch industry sales come from.

Brands like FPJ or Antoine Martin can exist and profitably on sales to WIS. Omega cannot. It would be just plain "pound foolish," IMO, for SG to scale back on its promotion of Omega, which is surely the jewel in SG's crown. You, I and others may prefer Breguet's products, but as a business, they don't hold a candle to Omega and that's what matters to Mr. Hayek and to his investors. People fail it seems to forget that these companies are businesses that make and sell watches; they not watchmakers who happen to have gone into business.

So that's what I think. Tell, me, why do you think it strange that SG is more focused on Omega and it's lower priced brands?

The basic approach of positioning is not to create something new and different, but to manipulate what's already up there in the mind, to retie the connections that already exist.
- Kytka Hilmar-Jezek


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

In one word "Yes" without hesitation


----------



## H2KA (Apr 17, 2010)

Breguet cal 777 is the most beautiful modern basic automatic movement that I know..  

Pic taken from the web


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Having just purchased one for my wife, I came away thoroughly impressed by the brand except in one regard-- as iim7v7im7 has mentioned, they do not communicate much about their movements the product manual.

Regardless, in terms of history and current product lineup, they should belong at the top.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

As the title of the thread...its up there...after those 4 other brands. It fits slot 5 fairly well.


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

After?



AbuKalb93 said:


> As the title of the thread...its up there...after those 4 other brands. It fits slot 5 fairly well.


----------



## PremierCurrency (Dec 5, 2013)

> a "movie" version of Tradition (with a bright blue dial, bright red gears, &c) and call it the "La Skyfall" Tradition


 
I just threw up in my mouth&#8230;


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

iim7v7im7 said:


> After?


PP,AP,ALS,VC...

Im leaving independents out of this..only using big houses. Those 4 are in no particular order although id place PP/ALS at the top, personally


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

I wasn't asking whether you felt within the four listed watch ateliers what was their rank order. I think that I was asking why you felt that Breguet was "after" the 4 listed watch ateliers? It wasn't clear to me why you felt that way. I was curious to hear your rationale (which is in line with many people's perceptions BTW). I happen to disagree, but many feel the way you do so I was curious.



AbuKalb93 said:


> PP,AP,ALS,VC...
> 
> Im leaving independents out of this..only using big houses. Those 4 are in no particular order although id place PP/ALS at the top, personally


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

Personally I place Breguet in the top 3


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

common rationale for putting certain brands over breguet:
patek- because it's the best
als- because they are the WIS best.
vc- because it's the oldest
ap- ???

in terms of popularity though, i would imagine it's patek, ap at the top with others far behind.


----------



## AAMC (May 25, 2011)

In the real life:
Breguet sells around 30.000 watches
AP around 30.000 watches mainly RO/ROO with a lower average price vs Breguet
VC around 23.000
ALS sells less than 6.000 watches

Everyone buying a Breguet has an high level of information regarding watches even if they don't participate in interweb watch forums, most of these persons know more about watches than the majority posting @ WUS

In the end Breguet it's a big player in high-end market 


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

iim7v7im7 said:


> I wasn't asking whether you felt within the four listed watch ateliers what was their rank order. I think that I was asking why you felt that Breguet was "after" the 4 listed watch ateliers? It wasn't clear to me why you felt that way. I was curious to hear your rationale (which is in line with many people's perceptions BTW). I happen to disagree, but many feel the way you do so I was curious.


Ah ok  
Well to me...i personally can't get over the fact that their finishing isnt up to par with some other brands...especially with the tradition and entry movements. But that's just me and my pickyness. Its really not something ill hold to as a fact. IMHO...once you get up to ranking brands in order its really ridiculous. Its best to just categorize into Tier 1,2,3 than in specific. We just keep going in circles. Although to me...FPJ is #1 ) JKS


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

shnjb said:


> common rationale for putting certain brands over breguet:
> patek- because it's the best
> als- because they are the WIS best.
> vc- because it's the oldest
> ...


I really like how you described ALS as a WIS best...well choice of words!


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

AbuKalb93 said:


> Ah ok
> Well to me...i personally can't get over the fact that their finishing isnt up to par with some other brands...especially with the tradition


Disagree with that. I have the Tradition with retrograde seconds in white gold (I really don't mind if you or others like it or don't like it - I'm never defensive) but the finishing is really high quality. Look at it closely and you can see that the hand finish is lovely.


----------



## PremierCurrency (Dec 5, 2013)

AbuKalb93 said:


> Well to me...i personally can't get over the fact that their finishing isnt up to par with some other brands...especially with the tradition and entry movements. But that's just me and my pickyness.


I'll remain very polite. It's not you or your pickiness, but your lack of understanding of the finish itself (when speaking of the Tradition). The Tradition has a hand applied blast with polished/chamfered edged. Obviously, since the "Geneva Stripe" and "Glashutte Ribbing" are machine finishes, hopefully you can understand why the Tradition is even a step above in terms of handicraft, skill, and time. Whether or not you like the aesthetics of the finish is another story and to each their own&#8230; 

On a "jokingly serious" note, I would LOVE to own a Journe, except I just can't get passed that little crown. Are there any models that have a "normal" size crown?


----------



## PremierCurrency (Dec 5, 2013)

LOL, the Breguet Tradition owners come screaming to the rescue of our beautiful watches!!!!! He beat me by 1 minute  *high 5 to GETS*


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

shnjb said:


> common rationale for putting certain brands over breguet:
> patek- because it's the best
> als- because they are the WIS best.
> vc- because it's the oldest
> ap- *because they are trendy (ie. AP RO and AP ROO)*


/


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

*Breguet Automatic Base Calibre: 777Q*


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

shnjb said:


> common rationale for putting certain brands over breguet:
> patek- because it's the best
> *als- *because they are the* WIS best.*
> vc- because it's the oldest
> ...


First, I have to say I'm loving your new term, "WIS best!" That one really deserves to be inculcated into standard, horological vernacular. Perhaps we'd all be better off to discuss what is/isn't "WIS best" rather than what's high end.

I like the way you explained all three (4??) of those. The phrasing makes sense and I think as to "why" one is seen as being ahead of the other(s), it's accurate.

Even though I think your summation is representationally faithful, I can't stand that it is. Now that has nothing at all to do with you. It has everything to do with all the folks who most likely do see it as you described. My gripe is that all those folks make the statements accurate, not that you are sentient enough to see that that is how they believe.

I can get with PP is the best. Vacuous as that statement is, PP's lineup, if one looks at the individual watches, pretty well supports it with tangible proof. As for the other two of the top three you listed, I personally just don't feel that way, but I know they are rightly identified as being in the top three/four.

I fully accept "WIS best" it for ALS' complicated watches. What I don't get though is that they put zero effort into their cases. They create a design, submit it to a case maker and go through the various proofing processes and viola they have a case. Now I know that a case is just that and it's not a moving part. But I also know that a case is the watch's equivalent to a car's body or the exterior of any mechanical product one buys, or the outer surface of a coat. The case plays a huge role in establishing the identity of a watch. Perhaps not as huge a role as the dial, but huge nonetheless.

In support of my point I ask you:

Do you need to see the dial of a Nautilus to know it's a Nautilus, Calatrava, or Ellipse? Ditto a Rolex (or a copy of a Rolex), AP's Royal Oak? 
Don't Speake-Marin's lugs tell you it's a S-M? 
A Reverso says JLC/Reverso regardless of which model it is, does it not? 
VC's Malte cases can only be those watches, or again, clones/homages to them. 
ALS' identity isn't in their cases and certainly not every watch by the companies I mentioned above, except Rolex, is unmistakably that company's case/watch. However, except for ALS, every one of the top four have at least one line that is very much their look, their case. If I must discuss "the top tier" at a brand level, then brand identity is necessarily part of that. Moreover, the extent to which a given brand's identity is manifest in the major elements of a watch also must matter.

When I consider PP, VC and AP, what is see is that each of them has multiple lines and multiple watches whereby their brand identity is fully represented in the case, dial, the movement, and sometimes in the strap/bracelet, and I'm not talking about a logo.


PP --> Nautilus, Calatrava hobnail watches, Ellipse 
AP --> Royal Oak and Tradition 
VC --> Malte, Historiques, 1972, Overseas 
Breguet --> Classique, Tradition, Heritage, Marine - some folks may disagree, but when I see that coin edge, I think Breguet 
Now the thing is that yes, the little grooves that surround the ALS cases are "them;" however, they don't make them and those other folks do make their own cases. I think I've been clear more than once that I'm not an in-house "fan boy," _per se_. However, at this level, it's not like I can legitimately say that one watch, watch line or brand is so much better overall that it deserves primacy over another watch, line or brand. So, among manufacture pieces, the more involved a company is in the design and build of their watch, the more due they are, well, due.

Am I saying that an ALS is not outstanding as a watch, line or brand? An unqualified "no" would be my answer. Would I, on the basis of the watch itself, discourage someone from buying one? Hell no! Do the do somethings better than the other candidates for the top three or four? Yes, they do. They hit the ball out of the park on movements.

But great movements not enough in this rare air we are discussing. Tourby make very well finished, hand finished by them no less, movements too and they certainly work as well as ALS' do to the extent they are equally complicated. Other watchmakers do so as well. But to be in the top three or four, I think that where all other factors are quite closely matched -- regardless of which company is a bit ahead on this point and a bit behind on that one -- a company that makes the whole thing deserves placement above one that doesn't.

So, shnjb, others, yes, I know the sequence you listed is arguably the common wisdom, I don't agree that it's the right sequence, or at least that ALS belongs at #2 in it.

*VC*
There's not much doubt in my mind that VC belong in the top three, I think it disgusting that the reason folks would be inclined to put them there is because they are the oldest. Here again, I'm not saying they don't feel that way; I'm saying that to the extent that's their reason, it just doesn't make sense and isn't enough of a reason for thinking that way. At least it's not enough of a reason for me to put VC in the top three. I think, however, one can infer what my reasons would be from my discussion about ALS.

All the best.

The merit of all things lies in their difficulty.
- Alexandre Dumas, _The Three Musketeers _


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

For me personally I prefer AP to all except PP because they make the best sporty looking watches.


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

shnjb said:


> For me personally I prefer AP to all except PP because they make the best sporty looking watches.


I see AP catering to the "early 20s-late 30s" HNWIs with their sporty models.

Rarely do I see the "young" crowd flock over PP. Their sporty models like Aquanaut and Nautilus are too discreet/refined compared to VC's Overseas or AP's RO and ROO.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

Let me rephrase myself...

Breguet makes excellent finished pieces, Hora Mundi for example...
When i saw the tradition a while back...i wasnt too impressed with the finishing on the caseback and i would think some other models from breguet would surpass it. Do i think it is in the top 5? Absolutely! 
Would i buy a Breguet? Absolutely and i have/am considering a Marine

Why did i stutter? I guess the general perception is its in the top 5 but not 3...not saying i agree nor disagree. I think its an excellent brand but perhaps not all of their pieces do me well.

Don't get defensive all you Tradition owners!!



PremierCurrency said:


> I'll remain very polite. It's not you or your pickiness, but your lack of understanding of the finish itself (when speaking of the Tradition). The Tradition has a hand applied blast with polished/chamfered edged. Obviously, since the "Geneva Stripe" and "Glashutte Ribbing" are machine finishes, hopefully you can understand why the Tradition is even a step above in terms of handicraft, skill, and time. Whether or not you like the aesthetics of the finish is another story and to each their own&#8230;
> 
> On a "jokingly serious" note, I would LOVE to own a Journe, except I just can't get passed that little crown. Are there any models that have a "normal" size crown?


You are probably right and wrong. I do understand the finish (i read about it a lot) but perhaps it just isnt my personal taste which you cant pick on me for.

Im not too sure how there are 'some' who complain about the Journe crown as i simply dont see any problem with it. I can grasp it very well and even better than some other pieces i own. Can't help you with that...

Maybe try his "LineSport" which has a rubber coated crown? Not my favorite of his collection and unless im desperate to own all the Journes out there i wouldnt put that as my priority.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

entropy96 said:


> I see AP catering to the "early 20s-late 30s" HNWIs with their sporty models.
> 
> Rarely do I see the "young" crowd flock over PP. Their sporty models like Aquanaut and Nautilus are too discreet/refined compared to VC's Overseas or AP's RO and ROO.


I seem to be in the demographic they pander to.
I'm happy to oblige lol


----------



## Imni (Dec 3, 2010)

Breguet is abolutely in the top 5 category. Take the 5237 for example - same base movement as VC uses and as PP used to use (and AP used in some tourbillon).


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

Imni said:


> Breguet is abolutely in the top 5 category. Take the 5237 for example - same base movement as VC uses and as PP used to use (and AP used in some tourbillon).


Some comments from my visits to the boutique:

The FP Journe small asymetrically knurled crown was designed that way to not interfere with the watch, be unique, and most importantly not rub into the wearer's hands. You could also say that the other brands' crowns are _too big_

The La Tradition of Breguet has "frosted gilt" finish on purpose because that was the type of finishing the earlier watches had that the La Tradition is based on. Current tradition's Frosted Gilt finishing:










Comparison:

Current Tradition:









"Piece n° 960, delivered in 1802 to Augustin de Betancourt for 1600 francs (approximately 15000€ as of today)."










Taken from http://www.watchprosite.com/?show=forumpostf&fi=1&pi=4105791&ti=653176&s=0


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> ...
> 
> Current Tradition:
> 
> ...


Breguet's Tradition watches just make me think of several conversations I had my daughter:

"Missy, you are not going out of this house looking like that. Take your skinny a$$ upstairs and put some clothes on, for Pete's sake!"
"Oh, Dad....but this..."
"There're no buts about it, and you aren't going out that door until there's more fabric covering yours."

I know folks like to see the little wheels whirling and the watch working and whatnot. _Suum cuique._

I like to see it too when I'm at the watch repair shop and they open up the thing. Whenever I can, I ask the repair guy to open the watch and show me what they are going to do. It's nifty to see and it helps me understand what I'm paying for. (I'm going to pay either way, but I like to know for what I'm paying.)

All the best.

Absolute nakedness was intrusive, confusing to the senses. Paradoxically, it both revealed and diminished identity.
- P.D. James, Innocent Blood


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

seeing underneath the clothes is exciting.

underneath the skin is not pleasant though.
have you guys ever held a human organ in your hand, live or not?

not really pretty.

i prefer watches.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

shnjb said:


> seeing underneath the clothes is exciting.
> 
> underneath the skin is not pleasant though.
> *have you guys ever held a human organ in your hand, live or not?*
> ...


Off Topic:
No, but I have my gall stones in a jar. LOL. I squeezed one of them right after the surgery. I was surprised at how soft it was. I was shocked at how large they are too. A few of them were the size of Monopoly dice.

All the best.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

tony20009 said:


> Off Topic:
> No, but I have my gall stones in a jar. LOL. I squeezed one of them right after the surgery. I was surprised at how soft it was. I was shocked at how large they are too. A few of them were the size of Monopoly dice.
> 
> All the best.


was that really necessary?...
Well there goes my appetite...


----------



## PremierCurrency (Dec 5, 2013)

AbuKalb93 said:


> was that really necessary?...
> Well there goes my appetite...


...and there goes the Champagne I just swallowed.

Hmmm, last night, GETS spewed his wine, another guy sat his scotch. This website has to be more friendly to those that just drank alcohol!


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

AbuKalb93 said:


> was that really necessary?...
> Well there goes my appetite...


You asked about organs. I figured you are some sort of doctor and wouldn't be squeamish about that sort of thing. Sorry.

If it makes you feel better, they are very not gross looking at all and they aren't gross to the touch either. For all the pain they cause, I'd have thought they look downright devilish, but they don't at all. They look quite a lot like a chicken or vegetable bouillon cube. With time, they begin to look more like a beef one, or a pebble one might pick up from the ground. What's gross is how awful they make one feel.

They're much more painful than a broken bone, at least the bones I've broken. 
Of course, the one's I've broken belong to other people. LOL. (just kidding)

All the best.

She kept a picture of a very Caucasian ***** on her living room wall and her gallstones in a baby food jar that hung from a pink ribbon on the bathroom door frame.
- Sam Harris
*
Gallstones*








*

Actual stones*


----------



## PremierCurrency (Dec 5, 2013)

...and there goes another sip of champagne........... I can't keep ANYTHING down!


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Ok that's enough tony


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

How is it that we manage to always drift the topic of a thread to something all the way across the globe different and unimportant....Tony??


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

AbuKalb93 said:


> How is it that we manage to always drift the topic of a thread to something all the way across the globe different and unimportant....Tony??


What? Did I say something? LOL.

I suspect you are just poking at me to be poking at me since that sort of thing doesn't bother me. I'm okay with that...and I'm laughing to myself as I write this.

All the best.

Sometimes you simply need to drift aimlessly, in order to reach the destination of aim.
- Lionel Suggs

P.S.
In case I was wrong and you do want an answer: (skip this if you didn't)
Well, is there something else of note to be said about the relative ranking of PP, AP, ALS, VC and Breguet? Were I to think of something I'd say it. I thought more about the matter and offered those thoughts back at post #30. I proposed the idea that ALS doesn't belong above Breguet or the rest.

shnjb inspired that post which addressed his "WIS best" concept as well as the relative positioning of Breguet and VC versus ALS. He also introduced human organs.

I won't deny that after a time, trying to consider whether one really fine watch brand is better than another really fine watchmaker is just doesn't get me very far in thinking about the actual watches. In many ways, it's like trying to figure out whether you or I have the better fingerprint pattern.

That's why I never post threads asking which watch should I buy. What can someone say that matters and that I can't figure out for my self by trying it on or researching it? Odds are, nothing. That's probably true for most of the regulars here. We all have a lot of watches. We all read about a lot of watches, and we all try on a lot of watches.

T.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

tony20009 said:


> What? Did I say something? LOL.
> 
> I suspect you are just poking at me to be poking at me since that sort of thing doesn't bother me. I'm okay with that...and I'm laughing to myself as I write this.
> 
> All the best.


b-) oui monsieur


----------



## ilikebigbutts (Feb 27, 2013)

Tony's so high end, he's pissing rubies


----------



## Victorhugo80 (Dec 18, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> Omega can hold it's own against most anything until one ventures into the HH space, although Omega does offer a few HH products in its De Ville line. While Omega is not HH primarily, it doesn't need to be. What it needs to be, to battle Rolex, is be the first or second brand name in people's mind. Omega is doing a fine job of achieving that.


I agree. Let's not forget the numbers, by the way: selling 30.000 watches costing, let's say, €60.000 on average (like Breguet does) is good.
Selling 1 million watches costing €5.000 on average (Omega, Rolex), it's better (for the company). Rolex and Omega are marketing-driven companies, much like Unilever or Procter&Gamble, only in a different market (I like their watches BTW, I'm just discussing their strategy).
I've been lucky enough, moreover, to wear a platinum De Ville tourbillon watch (one of 18 pieces worldwide). Really gorgeous, as I like skeletonized and complicated watches.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

ilikebigbutts said:


> Tony's so high end, he's pissing rubies


LOL


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

PremierCurrency said:


> ...and there goes another sip of champagne........... *I can't keep ANYTHING down!*


I suppose that's to be expected after enough bottles of champagne. LOL.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

With the mod being gone these days, this forum has gone out of control haha. I wonder what the guest reader will think going through this a year from now:-d LOL


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

Victorhugo80 said:


> Rolex and Omega are marketing-driven companies, much like Unilever or Procter&Gamble, only in a different market (I like their watches BTW, I'm just discussing their strategy).
> .


You ought to also explain that the "different market" really means their customer base is larger and consists of people whose judgement in watches is much more susceptible to be manipulated by marketing, rather than high-end customers who value the objective and historic criteria of the product.


----------



## Splinter Faction (Feb 23, 2013)

Okay, I'm a n00b, but I'll still take the role of bringing us back from Silence of the Lambs territory with the following question: Am I correct that part of the mystique of the grand trinity is that they simply do not sell watches that are by any stretch of the imagination affordable by "normal" people? (It seems clear that JLC is out of the club for violating that rule, and one of the comments above suggested that the same opprobrium applies to Breguet.) It would seem that they do so very intentionally, and that it is a very successful positioning strategy. (Full disclosure: I'm processing the pain of having just read the (stunningly beautiful) VC catalogue and pondering their price list.) (Also note: if the answer is "Yes, that adds to their status," that is not to say that they are not also the best. That's a separate discussion.) Also, while I'm rolling here, I would be curious to know why PP tends around here to get a slight lift above VC. I know that's a potentially elaborate discussion, but that's how we learn.


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

Splinter Faction said:


> Also, while I'm rolling here, I would be curious to know why PP tends around here to get a slight lift above VC.


I think shnjb's post (#21) best describes it.

It's because that's how WIS perceive the brand to be.
There is a consensus amongst the majority of WIS that PP is the "creme de la creme" of the watch world. It's the *WIS Best*.

It's all about perception.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> You ought to also explain that the "different market" really means their customer base is larger and consists of people whose judgement in watches is much more susceptible to be manipulated by marketing, rather than high-end customers who value the objective and historic criteria of the product.


Say what? Please tell me you said that just to provoke me/others.

The idea that high end customers in general "value objective and historic criteria of the product" so much more that they are not susceptible to being "manipulated by marketing" is preposterous. At best, high end consumers are susceptible only to being manipulated by messages from companies other than Rolex and Omega, if even that. High end WIS consumers may be slightly less manipulated than non-WIS high end consumers with regard to watch marketing messages, but even that's a stretch. I can think of many recent threads on WUS that illustrate either of those two things.
- Snobbery thread
- Parnis thread
- Multiple what is, what brand is, or is this or that watch "high end" threads
- This thread
While there are objective differences among many "high end" watches, few of them make any difference at all in terms of whether a watch actually performs better. Once one has moved from the functional aspects, all that's left are the non-functional ones, decoration. That's nothing more than a choice made by a maker to do it or not do it this or that way. All the "high end" makers have the ability to do it.

In some ways, high end consumers are more susceptible marketing manipulation than are other consumers. Other consumers have the sense to know that they aren't going to get a better performing watch no matter how much more than X they spend, so they don't spend more than X. High end consumers, in contrast, think there is something better about their watch, but the only thing that's actually better is the perception, not the reality. People like you, me, and the rest of our HEW brethren buy high end watches because we can, not because there's a need to do so or because there are no equally effective watches at lower prices and/or standards of fabrication.

All the best.

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
- Noam Chomsky, _The Common Good 
_


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

Splinter Faction said:


> Okay, I'm a n00b, but I'll still take the role of bringing us back from Silence of the Lambs territory with the following question: Am I correct that part of the mystique of the grand trinity is that they simply do not sell watches that are by any stretch of the imagination affordable by "normal" people? (It seems clear that JLC is out of the club for violating that rule, and one of the comments above suggested that the same opprobrium applies to Breguet.) It would seem that they do so very intentionally, and that it is a very successful positioning strategy. (Full disclosure: I'm processing the pain of having just read the (stunningly beautiful) VC catalogue and pondering their price list.) (Also note: if the answer is "Yes, that adds to their status," that is not to say that they are not also the best. That's a separate discussion.) Also, while I'm rolling here, *I would be curious to know why PP tends around here to get a slight lift above VC*. I know that's a potentially elaborate discussion, but that's how we learn.


b/c Patek is 100% in-house movements?


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Splinter Faction said:


> Okay, I'm a n00b, but I'll still take the role of bringing us back from Silence of the Lambs territory with the following question: *Am I correct that part of the mystique of the grand trinity is that they simply do not sell watches that are by any stretch of the imagination affordable by "normal" people?* (It seems clear that JLC is out of the club for violating that rule, and one of the comments above suggested that the same opprobrium applies to Breguet.) It would seem that they do so very intentionally, and that it is a very successful positioning strategy. (Full disclosure: I'm processing the pain of having just read the (stunningly beautiful) VC catalogue and pondering their price list.) (Also note: if the answer is "Yes, that adds to their status," that is not to say that they are not also the best. That's a separate discussion.) Also, while I'm rolling here, *I would be curious to know why PP tends around here to get a slight lift above VC.* I know that's a potentially elaborate discussion, but that's how we learn.


Red: Yes. If any of them were inexpensive, they wouldn't be in the "trinity."

Blue:
It's not just around here; the market shows them to be at the top too. That said, there are several reasons:

Perception -- this plays a huge role. PP have been better able to promote itself as number one and have that perception accepted. Once accepted by the public, it's very hard to get the public to alter that perception, harder indeed than it was to get to to espouse the belief in the first place. Not that it occurred with PP, but it's quite possible to be "excellent or singularly outstanding" for one generation and produce only "very good" for multiple generations afterwards and still be thought of as number one. That is the power of marketing.
Price -- PP have never produced any watch that could remotely be called affordable. VC has one model, the Overseas that could be seen as remotely affordable in that it can be had for about $10K. PP's price of entry is about $20K.
Performance -- PP watches generally are about as able as any utility watch to endure long spans of use without servicing (this pertains to simple ones mostly, but among complicated ones, theirs take less "babying" than do others).
Opportunity -- PP happen to have been the brand chosen by "important people" who wanted to have some sort of watch made for them. That gave PP a leg up on being able to demonstrate their abilities.
Value retention -- PP watches retain far more of their original MSRP than do just about every other major maker's watches. The only peer PP have in this regard is Rolex.
Quality -- PP's tangible, functional and observable quality may be no better than that of VC, ALS, and quite a few others, but it is no worse either.
Hope that helps.

All the best.

Our ignorance can be divided into problems and mysteries. When we face a problem, we may not know its solution, but we have insight, increasing knowledge, and an inkling of what we are looking for. When we face a mystery, however, we can only stare in wonder and bewilderment, not knowing what an explanation would even look like.
- Noam Chomsky


----------



## entropy96 (Nov 9, 2010)

Dancing Fire said:


> b/c Patek is 100% in-house movements?


No, they aren't.

Back then, PP used movements from JLC, Lemania, etc.
Heck, they've even put Quartz movements on a few Calatravas.
They still use quartz in most of their ladies watches.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

entropy96 said:


> No, they aren't.
> 
> Back then, PP used movements from JLC, Lemania, etc.
> Heck, they've even put Quartz movements on a few Calatravas.
> They still use quartz in most of their ladies watches.


As far as I know, Rolex, Citizen and I think Seiko are the only 100% in-house, in the purest sense of the term, watchmakers. Of those three, Rolex is the only onle I know of that is 100% in-house for every watch it makes. Rolex only recently became that way for it wasn't all that long ago that they used Zenith's movement inside the Daytona.

There are some parts that PP and a great many others buy from Nivarox/Swatch. Depending on how you want to define "in-house," Omega and the rest of the Swatch group brands would also be 100% in-house. I don't know if PP still buy eubauches from other companies.

To be honest, keeping up with it at that level of detail is just more work than I'm going to do seeing as I don't care if a movement is in-house or not. I choose watch brands and if the watch I choose from them is in-house, well, then it is.

All the best.

Freedom begins the moment you realize someone else has been writing your story and it's time you took the pen from his hand and started writing it yourself.
- Bill Moyers


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

entropy96 said:


> *No, they aren't.*
> 
> Back then, PP used movements from JLC, Lemania, etc.
> Heck, they've even put Quartz movements on a few Calatravas.
> They still use quartz in most of their ladies watches.


nowadays they are 100% in-house!,and as for producing quartz watches,well that's one of the reason I put Lange above PP. I'd give a lot of credit to Lange for not producing any quartz watches.


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

tony20009 said:


> To be honest, keeping up with it at that level of detail is just more work than I'm going to do seeing as *I don't care if a movement is in-house or not.* I choose watch brands and if the watch I choose from them is in-house, well, then it is.


Up to $1500,no, but if I were to pay $10k > then I want a in-house movement inside. I will not pay big bucks for a re-modified movement.


----------



## Splinter Faction (Feb 23, 2013)

Thanks to tony and others for taking on my question. Love the Chomsky quotes too.


----------



## ilikebigbutts (Feb 27, 2013)

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> You ought to also explain that the "different market" really means their customer base is larger and consists of people whose judgement in watches is much more susceptible to be manipulated by marketing, rather than high-end customers who value the objective and historic criteria of the product.


I'm not sure I agree with that. Not all people who buy expensive watches are WIS. More than in the $3-10k bracket probably, yes, but still a minority.

Patek is is the marketing king of high end, just like Rolex in their price bracket. Most people who buy Pateks are just like the Rolex buyers that so many WIS look down on, only with bigger wallets.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Honestly who cares about in-house? We are not talking about ETAs here.
In house is not as important once you go past the level of IWC and panerai using modified ETAs.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> As far as I know, Rolex, Citizen and I think Seiko are the only 100% in-house, in the purest sense of the term, watchmakers.


AFAIK they don't all make rubies, sapphire crystal, steel (and other metals used in the movements), silicon for gaskets, all the different screws, oils for lubrication ... So, strictly speaking not 100% in-house. On the other hand, similar percentage of "in-housement" can be attributed also to Sea-gull and Beijing. And traditionaly watchmaking was never 100% in-house. There were always specialists for different components of the watch/clock and the watchmaking was a cooperative bussines. IMHO the in-house fetish is a fairly recent affair.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

ilikebigbutts said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. Not all people who buy expensive watches are WIS. More than in the $3-10k bracket probably, yes, but still a minority.
> 
> Patek is is the marketing king of high end, just like Rolex in their price bracket. Most people who buy Pateks are just like the Rolex buyers that so many WIS look down on, only with bigger wallets.


FINALLY!! Someone who sees what i see!! where have you been all this time??:-!:-!


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

I am becoming less and less surprised how conversations drift away from the question at hand (a trend that I have noticed lately). I suppose it is inherent to internet forum conversation to some extent, where folks feel that they need to respond to or counter any and all thoughts and opinions that they do not agree with and a random conversation ensues. But keep in mind that some day in the future someone will be considering buying a Breguet watch and using the WUS search engine and run into this stream of consciousness mess of a thread.

QUESTION: Is Breguet up there with ALS, AP, PP and VC? 
ANSWER: Unquestionably yes in terms of the quality of the products that they produce.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

shnjb said:


> *Honestly who cares about in-house?* We are not talking about ETAs here.
> In house is not as important once you go past the level of IWC and panerai using modified ETAs.


There is a devilishly direct relationship between the significance of an idea and how nervous we become at the prospect of having to think about it.
- Alain de Botton, _Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion _

Clearly some people do. I don't, but I know that others do. I don't, and the discussion below shows why I don't. The short answer is because it's irrelevant to care whether a watch is or isn't.

Let's look at some examples. 

Clothing
When you go to the tailor to have a suit, jacket or shirt made, the tailor will present you with swatches or stroll you around the storeroom/showroom to examine bolts of material. Do you specify that you'll only accept materials he wove himself? If you do, most of the time, you're going to be told you'll need to shop elsewhere if that's an absolute requirement, and that includes London tailors. 
Art
If you commission an artwork, do you require a painter, say, to use only paints he created, canvas he wove, wood he milled? Again, if you do, you probably have to choose a different painter. 
Architecture
Did your architect and home builder purchase materials and assemble them or did they start with felling trees and collecting mud and whatever else needed to make the bricks? Did they quarry the granite or marble? 
Computers, Phones and other consumer goods that aren't cars and are machines
I know you know this sort of stuff is nowhere near 100% in-house made. 100% in-house assembled is the best you're going to get. 
Cars
Go the car maker of your choice and see if they'll build you a car by building every single bit, 100%, from scratch, from raw materials. Not one will. Some can come close and a few build their cars that way anyhow. However, automobile manufacturing is where the analogy starts to fall apart. It falls apart because while brand recognition and the status various brands have attained for themselves can fairly well be mapped between watches and cars, the production process cannot.
 _*Manufacture - Extent of Involvement:*_ Rolex, Citizen and Seiko are the only folks I can identify that in any way make every single part that goes into one or more of their watches. Nobody hear wants to equate Rolex with Ferrari, hell, some folks won't even deem Rolex to be "high end." Yet, Ferrari and a very few others have the level of involvement in the creation of their cars that Rolex has in the creation of its watches.

If you aren't willing to equate a Rolex to a Ferrari, and I'm certainly not, then you can't equate anyone else to one either. Why? Because those parts that most companies buy from Nivarox are essential to the watch; it won't work without them. By contrast, Ferrari themselves build every critical component in their cars, particularly the parts of the the motors, chassis and body. The same is true for many car makers, including the likes of Honda and Hyundai. 
_*Manufacturing and Finished Product - Comparability*_: In the bullet point above, I discussed the manufacturing disconnect between cars and watches. Here let's look at the comparability of the two products within their respective industries. As I said, in terms of recognition, sure we can map between the industries. That works out well enough so long as multiple watch brands can be assigned to a single car brand. There just aren't enough car brands to do it any other way. But when you do that you'll unavoidably assign watches that are far more broadly known and purchased than the corresponding car or we'll have no choice but to assign a watch that's not nearly broad enough for the car brand to which it's assigned.

For example, PP may be rightly assigned to Porsche. With PP's production level and market position, that seems about right. (Whether it is or not isn't the point; the illustration is the point.) Well, that may well cause VC or JLC or Bregut to also get mapped to Porsche. Now, are the comparable watches in the same group? No, not really. We could toss FPJ in there with PP and remove the other three. Great now the watches are comparable, but the car isn't. Now, we could change the car that we put PP and FPJ with. Put it with a Koenigsegg or a Zonda, but that'll just leave a different attribute incorrectly mapped. 

So, no, I don't care because at the end of the day, I want to buy a high quality product that I enjoy and that performs as expected. Were I that concerned about the quality, I'd learn how to and build one myself. I'm not and so I rely on the watchmakers to build one for me. I trust their judgement. I don't pay the higher cost of manufacture watches because I want to pay more or because it's made in-house, I pay it because there's something about the watch, other than being manufacture, that I cannot get in another watch. Usually, that's looks and simply adding something from that brand to my collection.

As for who makes the movement -- ETA, F. Piguet, Piaget, Concepto, others -- I don't care that much so long as it's reliable and meets my expectations in terms of reliability, durability, decoration and finishing, etc. Who makes the various parts of a watch is but a minor detail; however, knowing who makes it is important, for by knowing who made it, you also can determine whether you trust they knew what the hell they were doing when they made it.

All the best.

Science is an organized pursuit of triviality. Art is a casual pursuit of significance. Let's keep it in perspective.
- Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

iim7v7im7 said:


> I am becoming less and less surprised how conversations drift away from the question at hand (a trend that I have noticed lately). I suppose it is inherent to internet forum conversation to some extent, where folks feel that they need to respond to or counter any and all thoughts and opinions that they do not agree with and a random conversation ensues. But keep in mind that some day in the future someone will be considering buying a Breguet watch and using the WUS search engine and run into this stream of consciousness mess of a thread.
> 
> QUESTION: Is Breguet up there with ALS, AP, PP and VC?
> ANSWER: Unquestionably yes in terms of the quality of the products that they produce.


Yes.
Breguet absolutely belongs.


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> At best, high end consumers are susceptible only to being manipulated by messages from companies other than Rolex and Omega, if even that. High end WIS consumers may be slightly less manipulated than non-WIS high end consumers with regard to watch marketing messages, but even that's a stretch.
> 
> In some ways, high end consumers are more susceptible marketing manipulation than are other consumers. Other consumers have the sense to know that they aren't going to get a better performing watch no matter how much more than X they spend, so they don't spend more than X. High end consumers, in contrast, think there is something better about their watch, but the only thing that's actually better is the perception, not the reality.


The idea that people who spend _less _on an item, especially a fine art good such as a watch, do so because of _practical _reasons, and that those who spend _more _do so out of _impractical _reasons, strikes me as itself preposterous. To wit, when I was 12 years old, I saved up my allowance to buy a Casio calculator watch which I almost never used, the keys being too small and calculators being overrated in general in everyday life. Eventually I grew disgusted with the nerd-watch and tossed it, and into the landfill it lies along with all such throw-away mass-produced low-end items. Do you think my taste and judgement and my susceptibility to marketing messages is _worse _now, so many years later, because I am considering Breguet vs. FP Journe instead of Seiko vs. Casio? That now I am a pretentious fool compared to the cunning, don't-you-dare-advertise-to-me 12 year old digital-beep-beep watch me? I think rather my judgement and budget were inferior then, and so I was a Casio boy, instead of a Breguet one.

That those who spend more for higher-quality are really just irrational show-offs, and those who spend less are practical down-to-earth real Americans, is an absurdity, yet I cannot help but see it is the foundation of your argument. Besides, if your position be true, it would render your participation in this forum redundant: why bother with high-end items? Why buy a Porsche when a Souped-up Rice rocket will do? Look at this review of the watch I probably will buy first, (Test of the Breguet Tradition or jaune Ref. 7027 | The Watch Observer) and the photography of it. That is not a marketing wonder but actual world-class craftsmanship, original but timeless design, etc. They did not need to tie _La Tradition _into Apollo moon landings from 45 years ago, or fictional MI6 agents, or former E.R. tv stars, in order to hype it. Either it has beauty, or I do not buy it; it rests on its own merits, and not bribed "actors". Yet let the products themselves do the talking:


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

agree.



Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> The idea that people who spend _less _on an item, especially a fine art good such as a watch, do so because of _practical _reasons, and that those who spend _more _do so out of _impractical _reasons, strikes me as itself preposterous. To wit, when I was 12 years old, I saved up my allowance to buy a Casio calculator watch which I almost never used, the keys being too small and calculators being overrated in general in everyday life. Eventually I grew disgusted with the nerd-watch and tossed it, and into the landfill it lies along with all such throw-away mass-produced low-end items. Do you think my taste and judgement and my susceptibility to marketing messages is _worse _now, so many years later, because I am considering Breguet vs. FP Journe instead of Seiko vs. Casio? That now I am a pretentious fool compared to the cunning, don't-you-dare-advertise-to-me 12 year old digital-beep-beep watch me? I think rather my judgement and budget were inferior then, and so I was a Casio boy, instead of a Breguet one.
> 
> That those who spend more for higher-quality are really just irrational show-offs, and those who spend less are practical down-to-earth real Americans, is an absurdity, yet I cannot help but see it is the foundation of your argument. Besides, if your position be true, it would render your participation in this forum redundant: why bother with high-end items? Why buy a Porsche when a Souped-up Rice rocket will do? Look at this review of the watch I probably will buy first, (Test of the Breguet Tradition or jaune Ref. 7027 | The Watch Observer) and the photography of it. That is not a marketing wonder but actual world-class craftsmanship, original but timeless design, etc. They did not need to tie _La Tradition _into Apollo moon landings from 45 years ago, or fictional MI6 agents, or former E.R. tv stars, in order to hype it. Either it has beauty, or I do not buy it; it rests on its own merits, and not bribed "actors". Yet let the products themselves do the talking:


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> *The idea that people who spend less on an item, especially a fine art good such as a watch, do so because of practical reasons, and that those who spend more do so out of impractical reasons, strikes me as itself preposterous*. To wit, when I was 12 years old, I saved up my allowance to buy a Casio calculator watch which I almost never used, the keys being too small and calculators being overrated in general in everyday life. Eventually I grew disgusted with the nerd-watch and tossed it, and into the landfill it lies along with all such throw-away mass-produced low-end items. *Do you think my taste and judgement and my susceptibility to marketing messages is worse now, so many years later, because I am considering Breguet vs. FP Journe instead of Seiko vs. Casio?* *That now I am a pretentious fool compared to the cunning, don't-you-dare-advertise-to-me 12 year old digital-beep-beep watch me?* I think rather my judgement and budget were inferior then, and so I was a Casio boy, instead of a Breguet one.
> 
> *That those who spend more for higher-quality are really just irrational show-offs, and those who spend less are practical down-to-earth real Americans, is an absurdity, yet I cannot help but see it is the foundation of your argument.* Besides, if your position be true, it would render your participation in this forum redundant: *why bother with high-end items? *Why buy a Porsche when a Souped-up Rice rocket will do? Look at this review of the watch I probably will buy first, (Test of the Breguet Tradition or jaune Ref. 7027 | The Watch Observer) and the photography of it. That is not a marketing wonder but actual world-class craftsmanship, original but timeless design, etc. *They did not need to tie La Tradition into Apollo moon landings from 45 years ago, or fictional MI6 agents, or former E.R. tv stars, in order to hype it.* Either it has beauty, or I do not buy it; it rests on its own merits, and not bribed "actors". Yet let the products themselves do the talking:


Sorry to have to be so colorful, but here we go....

*Red:*
*It is preposterous to me too.* That was not my assertion. Did you think I'd disagree with you?


tony20009 said:


> The idea that high end customers in general "value objective and historic criteria of the product" so much more that they are not susceptible to being "manipulated by marketing" is preposterous. At best, high end consumers are susceptible only to being manipulated by messages from companies other than Rolex and Omega, if even that.


*My main thesis in that post is that high end consumers are neither more nor less susceptible to marketing hype than are any other type of consumer.* They are equally, perhaps more so, vulnerable to being "marketed" into wanting things for reasons other practical ones.

Perhaps had I written "they deem to be the makers of high end watches" instead of "other than Rolex and Omega" I might have more effectively conveyed that point to you. I had hoped, however, that by using Rolex and Omega, since that's what you'd responded to, I was in fact making the point sufficiently enough. I see my hope dashed.

*Blue:*
*No. I don't think that the watch one considers has anything to do with one's susceptibility to marketing messages.* * Yours, mine, or anyone's, sophistication as a consumer*--one who understands industrial psychology, one who is an objective, critical thinker--*does have something to do with it.* I see no reason to why any attribute of the thing purchased should be an indicator of one's sophistication and objectivity as a consumer.

Based on your story about one of your youthful experiences, I believe that you learned something. You learned that no matter how "cool" and useful something may be hyped to be, using that thing may identify practical realities that make the hype irrelevant. I'm sure you continued to think the calculator feature was a cool idea in concept even though you also knew that Casio's implementation of that idea was a poor one. Your sophistication as a consumer likely increased to some extent. Did in move to the point that you could extrapolate what you learned and apply the principles to other purchases/objects and yet not get mired in the specifics of the situation with the Casio? I don't know.

*Green:*
If you put the words into my mouth, they will say exactly what you want them to and you will interpret them with whatever meaning you had in mind as you sought to make them mine. *How you made the leap from "may be more susceptible" to "are really just irrational" I don't know. Those are your words, not mine.* I neither said that nor attempted to support such an assertion.

I did make a comment about pragmatism. It was:


tony20009 said:


> ...Other consumers have the sense to know that they aren't going to get a better performing watch no matter how much more than X they spend, so they don't spend more than X.


*You, I and others may be high end consumers for a given purchase. We each may, the next time we are buying, not be high end consumers at all because we want functionality, but little, if anything more.* I am certain that I and many others would in the latter situation not consider any high end watch for exactly the reason I stated.

*Nothing having to do with irrationality, and certainly not showiness, of high end consumers underpins my argument. My argument has to do with being susceptible to marketing messages.* It is true that the less rational one is, the more likely one is to believe the messages. Because they can afford to do so, *high end consumers* are less concerned about the extent to which they spend large sums on a watch. In other words, their *"practicality filter" is more porous and will allow the marketers emotional messages to carry a greater impact. In comparison, a mid-range consumer's "practicality filter" will see that the same pricey watch, while a fine time teller, has no more tangible benefits than a less expensive watch, but it costs much more.* The emotional part of the marketer's message carries no weight with that consumer.

*Brown:*
That's a question one must answer for oneself. I know why I buy them.

*I buy high end watches because I want something original looking and that isn't a copy of something else, something luxurious, something that looks nice to me, and, yes, something that tells time well enough for my needs.* Look back at anything I've written on here where I explain why I like this or that watch. You'll see that while I may sometimes say something about movements and construction, mostly what I applaud is aesthetic design.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/tourbillon-973093.html#post7281348 and https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/tourbillon-973093.html#post7281608 
https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/tor...-toro-ulysse-nardin-967475-3.html#post7238070 
https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/hew...econds-date-round-1-a-972515.html#post7272515 
https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/hew...nds-no-date-round-1-a-972488.html#post7272482 
Aesthetics aren't the sole thing that matter to me. I'm not oblivious to movements and I have a fair grasp of when the workings of a movement make a difference. I also understand and appreciate the artistic aspect of a movement and I've commented to that effect as well.

*Another reason I buy high end watches is because I am collecting watches and I have collection goals I'm trying to achieve.* In order to meet them, I must buy high-end watches. If my fortunes fade, I'll have to redefine my collecting objectives and buy less expensive watches (or, God forbid, none). The thing is, I'm not under any illusion that I'm spending all that money to acquire the best time telling devices one can wear on one's wrist.

It's not lost on me that whenever I buy a high end watch, there's nothing at all practical about my decision to do so. * I know that usually I can buy an in-house, uncomplicated with with beveled edges, Geneva stripes, guilloche, perlage, etc., for less money than the watch I might have chosen. *

Consider this:Take $20K and buy 365 $50 water resistant, mechanical watches. *You could wear a different watch every day for rest of your life and never need another watch. *I know that the scenario above is plausible because I've given way cheap Chinese watches to people and they tell me they keep time effectively even now, some five years later with no servicing.​I have a Tag F1 that's not been serviced in some eight years. I have an Air King that I couldn't accurately tell you how long it's been since it was serviced, but it's been at least a decade. They keep time just fine. My Swiss Army has never been serviced and I got it in high school. I'm 55; it still works well enough that at the end of a day I still arrive places on time just by relying on it as my time teller. These are the things that tell me that if one wants a high performing watch, one has absolutely no practical cause to spend huge sums on it.

*My choice of watches and my collection goals exist in their current status because I can indulge myself that way.* That's it. S*o the answer to your question of "why buy high end watches" is because one can. I'm not saying that one does do so because one is showy.* I'm not saying that buying a high end watch is irrational. I am saying that there is no rational reason for buying one. There is a difference between a rational justification and a person being rational. A discussion of the differences between _pathos _and _logos _is outside our scope; I won't expound on it further.

*Purple:*
It is true that *Bregue*t didn't need to tie the Tradition watch to Apollo or television starts. In part, they didn't need to because they'd already found something else to connect it to: tradition and an over 100 year old style of watchmaking. Specifically, Matrion wrote:This movement is unique in the world of modern watchmaking because it reclaims the architecture of the 19th century calibers....One is struck by the similarities: the layout of the cogs and of the escapement, terminal curve of the balance-spring, manual engravings...Breguet even goes so far as to equip the Tradition with a drop guard (first anti-shock system).​*All they did was trade one appeal to romanticism for another. *

The author also said:One small dampener: only the upper part of the bridges are beveled. Nothing serious, but a more thorough angling job wouldn't have hurt...​Well, s/he is right. At $20K+, it sure wouldn't have hurt. Indeed, it's slovenly that they didn't, IMO, especially at that price.

The author says quite a lot about the movement, but one thing s/he says very little about is the watch's ability to tell time accurately, consistently and so on. I don't know why. Maybe it's because that 19th century movement design doesn't do such a good job at it. I don't know. I don't care. Telling time is no more a reason to buy a high end watch than covering a hole in a wall is a reason to buy a painting. Just as one may use a high end watch to tell time, one may use a painting to cover a hole in a wall.

*Craftsmanship:*
There are multiple kinds of craftsmanship.


The kind that makes one watch perform as effectively as a mechanical watch can. Many watches have this well in hand. It's quite common to find watches that have achieved the apex of performance level of craftsmanship. Most of them are designated chronometers, but plenty aren't. Even being designated as a chronometer watch doesn't guarantee that the watch actually keeps better time than other watches. 
The kind that makes a watch distinctive looking. Many watches have something that distinguishes their appearance, both on the movement as well as other parts of the watch. The Moon imagery on some Omegas falls partly here, but also partly in the next kind too. This type of craft does not make the watch keep time any better. 
The kind that makes the watch not only look different, but does so in some unique, arcane manner. This kind of craftsmanship is all about aesthetics. It may even be difficult to achieve. It's the kind of thing that if you want it, your choices of what watch to buy are very limited. One also has to realize that such features make the watch better as an art piece, not as a watch. Like the kind of craft in the second bullet point above, this one adds nothing or very little to the performance of the watch as a time keeper. 
So now, coming back to who is more susceptible to marketing messages, let's consider the three types of craftsmanship. All three can be used as marketing points. There is no limit to the nature and extent of spin that can be applied to any one of these aspects of craftsmanship. Which of the possible types of messages will appeal to and resonate with high end buyers? All three most likely. As one works down the scale of buyer types, all three appeal, but each type of craftsmanship does not resonate for each buyer. The difference between appealing and resonating is that while both evoke feelings of "oh, that's really nice; I like it," only those that resonate add in the aspect of "and buy golly, I'm going to buy that watch because I must have that attribute."

*Sidebar: Long Posts*
Now you see why I just write long posts. Usually, there's a lot that I've spent some time thinking about (over the course of 30+ years of watch collecting) and so I write the entirety of my thoughts so that folks don't then come along and read into them what's not there. I could do the whole back and forth on this and that small point, but things get lost that way; I forget stuff and so do other folks. One post, three minutes to read (I just re-read this whole post. It took two minutes and 57 seconds.

All the best.

In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different.
- Coco Chanel


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> AFAIK they don't all make rubies, sapphire crystal, steel (and other metals used in the movements), silicon for gaskets, all the different screws, oils for lubrication ... So, strictly speaking not 100% in-house. On the other hand, similar percentage of "in-housement" can be attributed also to Sea-gull and Beijing. And traditionaly watchmaking was never 100% in-house. There were always specialists for different components of the watch/clock and the watchmaking was a cooperative bussines. IMHO the in-house fetish is a fairly recent affair.


Are you referring to the brands Tony mentioned?
If so, Seiko does make all those things. They manufacture their own rubies, sapphire crystals, quartz crystals, synthetic lubricants, plastics for gaskets, PCB's, the whole works. Completely vertically integrated. On the steel note, they don't MAKE steel, that would be a smelter. They have their own foundry though and make their own alloys (316 stainless being among them)
Rolex doesn't go to that extent, but close enough for anyone to care.
Carry on.....


----------



## Splinter Faction (Feb 23, 2013)

> One post, three minutes to read (I just re-read this whole post. It took two minutes and 57 seconds.


 And we have yet another answer to the evergreen question of "Do you actually use your chronograph?"


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Domo said:


> If so, Seiko does make all those things. ... Rolex doesn't go to that extent, but close enough for anyone to care.


I didn't know that. But I would say it's both a matter of quality and quantity/costs. If you need a lot of synthetic rubies it can be cheaper to produce them in-house. But that doesn't necessarily means your rubies are better than those manufactured by the specialist.

Anyway, in-house movement (or hairspring or any other element of the watch), even if it is Swiss or German made, can be inferior to the standard Eta (or Miyota or Seagull, for that matter).


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

Tony,

I would urge you to consider this...You not only write _*lengthy posts*_, but you post _*frequently*_. I know that you are not a fan of ambiguous language, so I thought I would present you with some clear numbers to illustrate my point.

In the last 4-5 months since you joined WUS, you post approximately 14-posts per/day (see plot below) and most are lengthy. I looked at >20 frequent posters to this forum to get a sense of participation (not length of individual posts) by looking at the length of their membership and the number of posts by looking at their join dates and number of post statistics. Most active participants post between 1-3 posts/day. In your brief time here, you have been posting about 14-posts/day (e.g. >8x the average rate of active forum participants). There is obviously no rule about how often one can post or how lengthy a post can be, but after a certain point you begin to dominate the content of the forum. Imagine you are at a dinner party, sitting at a large table and you you spoke >8x the amount of others and when you did you where loquacious. How would others feel about this guest?

So, I may be in the minority in my view, but I have found the content of the forum to have morphed into a vehicle of your stream-of-consciousness. I think many of the things that you write and interesting and insightful, I just find the sheer number and length of your postings shape the forum to be the "Tony20009 forum" and no longer a community participating "High-end watches forum". You are obviously enjoying being here and are an articulate person. For the most part, I enjoy having your input and perspectives here. You may not have been aware the the numbers as shown below. Food for thought....

Respectfully,

Bob












tony20009 said:


> *Sidebar: Long Posts*
> Now you see why I just write long posts. Usually, there's a lot that I've spent some time thinking about (over the course of 30+ years of watch collecting) and so I write the entirety of my thoughts so that folks don't then come along and read into them what's not there. I could do the whole back and forth on this and that small point, but things get lost that way; I forget stuff and so do other folks. One post, three minutes to read (I just re-read this whole post. It took two minutes and 57 seconds.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

Im sorry Bob but i find the graph incredibly funny...no offense.

I agree Tony writes a looot but i find his words interesting and informative. Sadly though, if its too long i dont really read it all but im sure its a great addition to threads. His 30+ years of watch collecting shows and can teach us all something|>


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

I am happy as always to provide entertainment to your day...



AbuKalb93 said:


> Im sorry Bob but i find the graph incredibly funny...no offense.
> 
> I agree Tony writes a looot but i find his words interesting and informative. Sadly though, if its too long i dont really read it all but im sure its a great addition to threads. His 30+ years of watch collecting shows and can teach us all something|>


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

Even worse , he's also got us beat on the number of different colors used _within _those numerically-superior posts. A guy just can't win on this subforum.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Bob you win the most impact per post award

My posts are usually one liners typed on my iPhone


----------



## ilikebigbutts (Feb 27, 2013)

I've made it onto one of Bob's graphs.

I claim my 15 minutes of fame now.


----------



## Snoopy_dude (Nov 21, 2012)

Breguet definitely belongs in the top 5. Here is how I would rank the 5 brands
1. PP (best resell value, movements nicely decorated and finished even in their entry level watches)
2. ALS (resell value not as good compared to PP)
3. Breguet (movements not as finely decorated/finished in their entry level watches compared to 1 and 2)
4. AP (too heavily focused on certain models compared to 1, 2, and 3) / VC (not as many technical inventions in recent years compared to 1, 2, and 3)

This is just IMHO.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

Snoopy_dude said:


> Breguet definitely belongs in the top 5. Here is how I would rank the 5 brands
> 1. PP (best resell value, movements nicely decorated and finished even in their entry level watches)
> 2. ALS (resell value not as good compared to PP)
> 3. Breguet (movements not as finely decorated/finished in their entry level watches compared to 1 and 2)
> ...


I would argue but because you were smart enough to put your reasoning and basis of ranking in brackets i can only agree with your list.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

In many ways the top X watches are just like the top X colleges and universities. There are pros and cons to choosing any one of them and which one chooses comes down to how one prioritizes the things they all offer. For example, Harvard is quite likely the best for networking, but MIT or Cal Tech, or even the University of Maryland may have a better engineering department. 

Just as with undergrad university eductions, it matters very little which one you go to so long as it's recognized as being decent, such as just about any state university is. At the graduate level, the quality of the program matters more than the university itself. That's technically true for undergrad too, but many incoming freshmen, if my kids are like most kids, aren't that certain of what they want to actually study. They may choose to go to U.Wisconsin to study sociology because U. Wisc. has an outstanding sociology program, yet before becoming a junior decide they prefer something else.

All the best.

Mathematics is the study of analogies between analogies. All science is. Scientists want to show that things that don't look alike are really the same. That is one of their innermost Freudian motivations. In fact, that is what we mean by understanding.
- Gian-Carlo Rota, Indiscrete Thoughts


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

I would choose Harvard over caltech every single time lol

Sorry for going off topic again but I can't resist as I have a short attention span.


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

I wish to be as fair as possible to Tony, but in truth I cannot figure out his counter-arguments. I am not astute enough to comprehend his arguments; he seems to give me the main point but then discusses at great length various side issues. So allow me to respond apropos with the best arguments I can find, better even than logic; in the question of whether high-end customers respond differently to marketing than other customers, what could I possibly say to counter Nicole Kidman & Brad Pitt's taste in (given to them for free) watches?




































As you can see, beauty and fashion are but one mall-store purchase away; that is all we know, and all we need to know.


----------



## rogerfromco (Sep 15, 2010)

entropy96 said:


> I see AP catering to the "early 20s-late 30s" HNWIs with their sporty models.
> 
> Rarely do I see the "young" crowd flock over PP. Their sporty models like Aquanaut and Nautilus are too discreet/refined compared to VC's Overseas or AP's RO and ROO.


I just bought my first AP (RO) at 51. it came down to the VC Overseas and the RO won when looking at them both on the wrist. I found the PPs did not appeal to me.

I also looked at many Breguets while making the decision and was very impressed by their styling but just didn't find one that spoke to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> I wish to be as fair as possible to Tony, but in truth *I cannot figure out his counter-arguments.* I am not astute enough to comprehend his arguments; he seems to give me the main point but then discusses at great length various side issues. So allow me to respond apropos with the best arguments I can find, better even than logic; in the question of whether high-end customers respond differently to marketing than other customers, what could I possibly say to counter Nicole Kidman & Brad Pitt's taste in (given to them for free) watches?
> [pics deleted[
> As you can see, beauty and fashion are but one mall-store purchase away; that is all we know, and all we need to know.


We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.
- Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

I'll try again. First off, let me say that the usual unspoken conclusion to every ad is this: Our product/brand is the best and you should therefore buy a [insert brand or model], or failing that, at least consider us as the best.

Advertising uses a huge variety of appeals. (Different Types of Advertising Appeals - I personally put them all into two broad classes: emotional and rational.) Regardless of the appeal used in any given ad, the seller's choice of any given appeal results from an understanding -- their own or an ad agency's -- of the "hot buttons" that will most evoke a positive response from their customers. It doesn't matter if the target customer is high end or bargain basement. Either way, the ads use the tactics learned from years and years of industrial psychology. Which ads the seller implements is more a function of marketing, which involves not only advertising, but also positioning, identifying target markets, consumer behavior, understanding the competitive environment, etc. The content of the ad, however, is all about psychology and linguistics/rhetoric.

Top Five Appeals That Advertisers Use to Sell a Product | Chron.com
UNDERSTANDING ADVERTISING APPEALS - Management Consultancy Blog | MBA & Co. - Management Consultancy Blog | MBA & Co.

The "hot buttons" for high end consumers are different from those of folks buying less expensive goods only in that there are more "hot buttons" available to be pushed. High end consumers respond to rational and emotional ads, as well as other kinds of ads. For one such consumer, the ad may create only a positive impression of the brand or item. For another, the ad may inspire enough positive feeling that that consumer goes so far as to actually purchase the item.

One thing that is certain is that quality, _i.e._, that the item is well constructed, is not the sole purview of high end consumers. Similarly, being susceptible to the "hype" is something to which few consumers are immune and most high end consumers fall prey to the "hype" as do low end ones.

To see what I mean, consider Patek's current suite of ads. All of them are emotionally based and play up nothing at all about the objective attributes of the watch. From PP's own website (http://www.patek.com/contents/default/en/advertisingcampaign.html):"The concept of the Patek Philippe 'Generations' campaign based on the slogan "Begin Your Own Tradition" is centered on the universal emotion of a father and son relationships."​VC's appeals nearly always have one central message (Google Vacheron Constantin ads and see for yourself): they've been doing it for so long that they know how to make an excellent watch. Well, you don't need me to see the logical fallacy in that message/reasoning. There's nothing rational, logical, about that kind of reasoning.

FWIW, generally, but not always as several VC ads show, the fewer words an ad has the greater the extent to which the ad appeals to one's emotions. Though ads for high end products will sometimes toss a nod to ration by saying something that seems like it might make sense -- as goes making a case for precision, quality, craftsmanship -- but most often, rather than actually presenting information that does in fact support such claims, the seller instead presents information that let's the audience infer, fallaciously, as goes the tenants of logic.

In my last post on this topic you and I are discussing -- whether high end consumers are more or less susceptible to being manipulated by marketing messaged -- I discussed your experience with the Casio watch you tossed. I also explicitly mentioned consumer sophistication. I wondered whether the 12 year old boy had, as a result of his experience, become a more sophisticated consumer. The sophistication to which I'm referring has to do with one's ability to critically assess the messages one receives and correctly determine whether the syllogisms them are indeed valid. Sophisticated consumers can tell, and they consistently are critical in their readings of such messages. Less sophisticated consumers are critical in their evaluation of the message, but to some lesser extent, sometimes not at all.

The truth is that high end consumers are neither more or less likely to be critical in their reading of the marketing messages that come their way. Let's look at some ads from two makers who are targeting high end consumers.










Looking criticallly at each ad:

First Rolex ad:
I can't identify why carving a watch from a steel ingot is any better than molding one by pouring liquid steel into a cast. Neither approach leaves a seam which would be a weak spot. Carving sounds cool though and it's easier to imagine a dude chiseling away at a chunk of steel than it is to fathom the vagaries of molding and casting processes and what matters in them and what doesn't. 
All steel is hardened and Swedish steel is no better or worse than anyone other nation's steel 
The ad opens with a discussion about stamina, but the fact is that strength is more what matters. The ad attempts to convince the audience the watch has both attributes, but it only specifically states a few points that ostensibly have something to do with durability. The stamina case is made via an _association_ with someone who probably does have a good amount of stamina, but nothing is actually presented to state the watch has any such trait. 
What does how long it takes to make a thing have to do with how well made it is? The ad craftily tosses in the word "accurate" to evoke a sense that there's also some connection with the watch's time keeping accuracy. 

Second Rolex ad: This ad does offer a sound line of reasoning for why consumers can rely on a Rolex to be waterproof, at least to the extent to which they are saying it is. You'll notice too that Rolex do not claim it to waterproof at the bottom of the sea, merely in the sea. What is claimed can, in an ad, be as important as what is not claimed, particularly if one is critically evaluating the ad. The key is that most readers won't take their read to that level, but if one is going to try to figure out what is "best" one must be that critical.

What's worth noting about this ad is that it pre-dates the super sophisticated approach to marketing that we see today. I won't go into all the reasons why the general nature of marketing, advertising content, has changed, but I will say this. In general, a seller who is promoting a new or product will, even today, have a more rationally oriented ad than will a seller selling an established one. The somewhat greater focus on facts, objectivity and rationality, is what is used by any seller who feels they have to prove something. 
Breguet ad: Just what does the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte wore a Breguet have to do with whether a Breguet is any good. Napoleon had his Waterloo and Russian campaign too, but I can assure you that's not what Breguet wants you to think of. 
Patek Philippe - first ad: I don't really know what to make of this ad. It's clear to me that a PP must be an expensive watch since I guess I'll want to pass it on to my son. I guess the message is "I should feel good about spending the money it takes to buy a PP because it will survive my death and my son won't have to spend even more when he's making money for himself." Of course, there are quality implications to such a statement', but the ad says nothing explicit about why I should think their watch will actually endure that long and remain in a condition such that my son would want to wear it. Perhaps he'd do so out of honor to my memory.... 
Patek Philippe - second ad: This ad basically suggests the following line of reasoning: Einstein was super smart, super precise, a genius in fact and he wore a PP. A PP watch is a work of genius and you'd be one too by wearing it. The ad writer may not have had that exact syllogism in mind, but it's clear they are associating the consumer and the buyer with Einstein. While it's true Einstein was a physics master, I really have no reason to think he knew the first thing about what makes one watch better than the other, let alone what makes PP's watch better than another maker's. 

Hopefully the preceding helps you understand why it is that high end consumers are not more or less susceptible to being manipulated by marketing messages. To the contrary, they are more likely more susceptible to it because they have more "freedom of spending" than do non-high end consumers. Moreover, the marketing messages issued to high-end consumers are far more sophisticated and insidious, making it all the more likely for a high-end consumer to succumb to their ploys.

If you do not, the best thing I can do is point you to some scholarly writings that will make the same points. I suggest you start with this:


http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/533_8ps_of_luxury_branding.pdf. 
How companies can win both the low-end and high-end consumer - Quartz 
Entry-level products can attract future high-end luxury consumers - Luxury Daily - Advertising 
A Study on Consumer Behaviour on High End Luxury Brand Product Market in India. - Essays - Manangupta4 

All the best.

Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he knows what it is not. 
- C.G. Jung


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> All steel is hardened and *Swiss steel is no better or worse than anyone other nation's steel*


I have NOTHING to ad to this debate, but that makes the (now deceased) metal fabricator and welder in me roll in his grave!
Scandinavia (particularly Sweden, not Swiss as you erroneously quoted) has among the richest and most pure Iron ore deposits in the world. Us little Aussies make a damn fine steel too, but you can't beat Swedish steel. You ever made something out of Chinese steel? You don't want to 
Carry on....


----------



## Victorhugo80 (Dec 18, 2013)

Domo said:


> you can't beat Swedish steel.


True, Sandvik steel is the best for (expensive) kitchen knives. This is their top alloy for that use:
http://www.smt.sandvik.com/en/produ...fe-steel/sandvik-knife-steels/sandvik-14c28n/


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Domo said:


> I have NOTHING to ad to this debate, but that makes the (now deceased) metal fabricator and welder in me roll in his grave!
> Scandinavia (particularly *Sweden, not Swiss as you erroneously quoted*) has among the richest and most pure Iron ore deposits in the world. Us little Aussies make a damn fine steel too, but *you can't beat Swedish steel*. You ever made something out of Chinese steel? You don't want to
> Carry on....
> 
> ...


*Misquote: * I did mistakenly write Swiss. TY for noticing that. I'm correcting it now.

*Swedish Steel:*

A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
- Dan Chaon, Stay Awake

Sweden does indeed have very high quality iron. One aspect if Swedish iron is that the non-iron elements in it form steel alloy (crucible steel) rather than just carbon steel. Thus it takes less "work" to produce a higher quality steel. Prior to the modern era, the issue was, I think, one of consistency when compared with steel made by non-Swedes. The consistency gap in part was because folks simply didn't know what other elements needed to be added to the iron/steel to make it better. In the modern era, once folks knew what the other alloying elements were, it wasn't hard to see that it's just cheaper to buy steel/iron ore that already has them from nature than it is to fabricate the same steel recipe and do it oneself.

Steel Types - Resources - Blade HQ
What's the Best Steel?
Sandvik 14C28N knife steel
Knife Blade Steels - KnifeCenter

As for Rolex specifically, well, in 1969 (the year of the ad pictured here https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/breguet-up-there-pp-ap-als-vc-974720-9.html#post7321454) Rolex did buy steel alloy from Sweden. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the choice to do so was driven by the Swedes being the only folks who could make it. Far more likely is that of the suppliers available, the Swedes were less expensive and the marketers merely took advantage of the fact that the steel chosen was Swedish.

I say that because I lack internal, Rolex documentation about their metal procurement and because I also know that steel is a commodity and no business would deliberately buy a commodity -- an undifferentiated good -- at a higher net cost price. Heck, nobody would. Steel of a given recipe is steel just as pork bellies are pork bellies, regardless of whether this or that pig has more or less fat on its belly.

In 1985, Rolex began to use 904L steel (Stainless Steel - Grade 904L (UNS N08904)) which has a pitting resistance equivalency (PRE) of 35, making it more resistant to saltwater corrosion. (PR 32 is the minimum for saltwater corrosion resistance.) I don't know if Rolex buy their steel from Swedish producers, but I do know that the Swedes aren't the sole producers of it.

Having said that. I the ad said something like "Rolex uses Swedish steel having a PRE of 35," understanding what that means would tell me that there's a specific benefit to the Steel used to make Rolex's cases and the correlation with that diver they mentioned would make some sense. Merely being Swedish, however, does nothing but play on the annals of history where once it was true that the Swedes' steel was a better product. Again, it's just a marketing ploy that uses a snippet of truth and allows the audience to fallaciously form their own conclusions regarding its merit. Most of the time, the audience is more than willing to form their conclusion by jumping.

All the best.

Jumping to conclusions is like playing with damp gunpowder: both likely to go off in wrong direction.
- Charlie Chang


----------



## Kenneth Cole Haan (Dec 5, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> say that the usual unspoken conclusion to every ad is this: Our product/brand is the best and you should therefore buy a [insert brand or model], or failing that, at least consider us as the best. . . .
> 
> Hopefully the preceding helps you understand why it is that high end consumers are not more or less susceptible to being manipulated by marketing messages. To the contrary, they are more likely more susceptible to it because they have more "freedom of spending" than do non-high end consumers. Moreover, the marketing messages issued to high-end consumers are far more sophisticated and insidious, making it all the more likely for a high-end consumer to succumb to their ploys.
> 
> If you do not, the best thing I can do is point you to some scholarly writings that will make the same points. I suggest you start with this: . . .


To respond to you point-by-point would take a lifetime, I fear. You may be 55-years-old but I admire that you can still internet post like a 15-year-old. I can hardly keep up with your youth and exuberance. Let me take you at your word that you will not respond further, though I have been lied to before in life.

The silly ads you dredged up from years past: Yes, I figured you might spend the time to scrounge up some token Breguet print ad (probably in a more-literary-than-average magazine read by high-income people) and some Patek propaganda, as we know that company does advertise heavily, and with some success. I proudly admit that I am a _Breguet Boy _and will easily throw Patek to the wolves and end your arguments there. Let me also admit and give you full credit, however, that no high-end brand is above advertising; I know that Patek P. has a massive marketing budget to the point that even _Tony Soprano _bought one for his corrupt business partner. But what of it? Really, it is the _Mona Lisa _effect, as I call it, when something that is truly great art (like the Mona Lisa) is popularized to the point where even those who know nothing otherwise of the painting, the painter, or even the Renaissance, can still appreciate it; and if the _Mona Lisa _were not priceless and up for auction, some Russian/Chinese billionaire would very well purchase it there. Tony Soprano knew little of _Souscription _watches, balance wheels, or minute repeaters when he bought that Patek, I figure. What he did know was how much a Patek is worth, and that money talks, and so he imitated high-end buyers that had gone before him. But what of it? The point of this all was not that high-end _brands_ don't advertise; of course there is _some _advertising, and Patek Phillippe is guilty of much of it as they no doubt wish to have the _Nouveau riche's riches._ All human beings are susceptible to propaganda and plays on their feeling, and art and jewelry are no exceptions to this rule, being almost spiritual decisions. This I admit, but it was not to the point. Perhaps an example will help: The Louvre museum uses the _Mona Lisa _to advertise its brand, selling posters and other knick-knacks of it in their giftshop, because the common person who knows nothing of Renaissance art still knows the _Mona Lisa_. There is money to be made here, at the highest-end of musuems. Is then the Louvre at the same artistic level as the local hollywood movie theatre trying to market the latest popcorn blockbuster via movie posters, because both use posters to make a dollar? Is not one of these of higher-end than the other?

Also I note you did not offer any advertisements from FP Journe, an extremely obscure brand outside of these circles, yet they sell every watch they produce with (I believe) no mass media marketing whatsoever to help them. How then, Tony, does François-Paul sell 100% of his inventory, if the judgement of a high-end customer is even more "susceptible" to marketing? Tell me where the FP Journe product placement ads are in the latest Schwarzenegger movie, so that I may spot them.

The personal story I told earlier was the strongest persuasion I thought I could offer; to my surprise, you missed my point. I myself went through the process I mentioned, where my judgement improved, so did my resistance to marketing-though of course I am not above persuasion. That Patek Phillippe is running cheesy ads to get the CEO-class to visit the local Salon, to ensure Patek remains solvent as a company and not engulfed by Swatch Group, or whatever, does not change the facts of life: 1) people differ greatly in their judgement (objective) and taste (subjective) in any particular field, such as watches; 2) these differences allow us to group people with similar judgement & taste into certain classes, and 3) each group tends to prefer watches at its own level of judgement and taste. The difference in judgement and taste that we possess is quite apparent when it comes to jewelry and art; watches, being a combination of those two things, expose our differences. Do you think the wearer of that Tag Heuer model with the florescent green-colored-over-sized-plastic-bezel, or the Kobe Bryant "Black Mambo" (the diamond version) has the same level of judgement in watches as the majority of the people on the high-end forum?

Thus, "high-end watches" exist for those buyers with the highest-level of judgement in watches, and of course the desire and means to pay for it. That some buyers of high-end watches do not necessarily possess the full understanding or judgement, but have been persuaded by marketing or reputation alone, I do not doubt it, but it does not change the underlying human differences, anymore than if a rock n' roll lover were to visit the Opera, though he did not enjoy the opera or understand it much, but attended merely because he thought it was "high-society", would have negated the fact that Opera is the "high-end" of performing art.



















also, BANG BANG! You are Omega'd.


----------



## IveBeenMoved (Dec 27, 2013)

A thoroughly thought provoking thread. Love the contributions by all.

If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" then "high-end" is in the 'imagination and emotion of the beholder'.

May I open a can of worms, toss in JLC and call it the "Supreme Six"?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> ...You may be 55-years-old but I admire that you can still internet post like a 15-year-old. I can hardly keep up with your youth and exuberance.


First, I am going to expressly ask you to refrain from tacitly insulting me in general and specifically intimating that I am adolescent.



Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> ...Let me take you at your word that you will not respond further, though I have been lied to before in life...
> 
> Do you think the wearer of that Tag Heuer model with the florescent green-colored-over-sized-plastic-bezel, or the Kobe Bryant "Black Mambo" (the diamond version) has the same level of judgement in watches as the majority of the people on the high-end forum?
> 
> [pics deleted]


Second, if you don't want me to respond, don't ask a question that demands an answer. Do not think it's lost on me that your phrasing places me in the rhetorically "catch 22" position of answering and being a liar or not answering and being rude, and appearing to agree with my silence. But for your question, I'd have been happy to simply be seen as apathetic and/or suffused with enuii.

You and keep discussing things that have no relationship to the point you disputed initially. You began by refuting my assertion that high end buyers are not more or less susceptible to being manipulated by marketing efforts. That is the only point I've been discussing and it's the sole one I made that you took exception with here: https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/breguet-up-there-pp-ap-als-vc-974720-8.html#post7310622. That assertion, and your refutation of it, is also the only point I've been discussing and bolstering.

So far, you haven't presented one, single point that credibly refutes that assertion. Not one; not half of one. Moreover, you finally agreed with that assertion when you wrote, "That some buyers of high-end watches...have been persuaded by marketing or reputation alone, I do not doubt it." Seeing you finally, in your last paragraph admit that, I wonder why you bothered to oppose that point in the first place...

You make several points in your most recent post, one of which I agree with: 

People differ greatly in their judgement (objective) and taste (subjective) in any particular field, such as watches. 
I would have called judgement "understanding," but I can live with your word choice. Yes, there are surely differences in understanding about watches among the folks who buy "high end" watches. I don't recall ever having said or intimated that isn't so. What I wrote, again, is that high end watch consumers -- which includes people who know something about watches as well as people who don't -- are no more more less susceptible to marketing manipulation than any other kind of consumer.

You also wrote, ""high-end watches" exist for those buyers with the highest-level of judgement in watches." That is also true; however, the quantity of people possessing "the highest level of judgement" is not great enough to sustain a larger production run of watches. Sure, FPJ and others could make more of a given watch, but were they to do so, eventually time would pass them buy and so too would their competition, leaving FPJ a victim of obsolescence.

You asked:Do you think the wearer of that Tag Heuer model with the florescent green-colored-over-sized-plastic-bezel, or the Kobe Bryant "Black Mambo" (the diamond version) has the same level of judgement in watches as the majority of the people on the high-end forum?​The only fair answer is, "I don't know whether that person has the 'same level of judgement in watches as the majority of the people on the high-end forum.' " I cannot and will not judge a person or their taste on the basis of one watch they wear/own. I can determine whether I care for that particular watch or don't care for it, but that's as far as I can go.

On the mater of "scrounging up a token" ad, there was no scrounging involved. I merely did a Google image search for "Breguet advertisement print" and it came right up at the top of the page. I'd never seen the ad before that. I didn't need to. All I needed to do was understand the nature of high end goods marketing, pick a brand and Google for ads issued by that brand. I just don't know. A substantively identical search -- "F.P. Journe print advertisement" -- shows that FPJ does indeed issue print advertising.

That said, it hardly makes sense to cite buyers of a watch made in quantities below ~500 watches a year as evidence of the extent to which "high end watch" consumers are or are not more susceptible to marketing manipulatable than are any other type of consumer. Such an argument makes little sense because there are some 100K+ "high end watches" sold each year and what 500 or so customer do or don't buy of that 100K is indicative of little more than that they chose to buy the watch they did because they wanted to and could afford to do so.

I believe you have it in your mind that the only folks who might buy watches such as those FPJ produces are folks who know something about watches. Folks who buy FPJ watches may know something about watches, but it is not a requirement that they do. While it is true that companies like FPJ put out few traditional print ads such as those you and I have pictured, there are other channels by which they can and do communicate the existence of their wares.

One such channel is called a "press release," and as has been shown in at least one other recent WUS thread, those press releases at times comprise the entirety of information certain publishers offer about a given watch. Another channel is a feature article in publication commonly read by the maker's target market, which at the most basic level is people who can afford to buy the darn thing.


Dial J for Journe | F.P. Journe's New Anniversary Tourbillon Watch - WSJ.com 
Swiss Watchmaker F.P. Journe Launches New Chronometre Optimum In New York. - Penta Daily - Barrons.com 
FP Journe: Making the most of a rich sense of history - FT.com 
F.P. Journe 30 year Anniversary watch- WristwatchWorld 
Trends And Colours 
One publication for rich folks, _The Robb Report_, has created an application that allows consumers to hone in on high end watches. (Robb Report taps growth potential in luxury watch market via iPad app - Luxury Daily - Mobile)

The point isn't that FPJ, IWC, PSM and others aren't watches for "watch guys." The point is that among the among the high end watches available, the folks who buy them are as likely to be swayed by marketing as anyone else. The only way to make that less true is to define "high end watches" such that the definition excludes any watchmaker whose wares' availability are communicated in any manner other than word of mouth.










*Suggested Reading:*
Pierre Bourdieu, _Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste _(http://performingtext.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2010/08/Bourdieu.pdf)
Walter Benjamin, _The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (or Reproducibility)_ (http://www.berk-edu.com/VisualStudi...art in the age of mechanical reproduction.pdf)

All the best.

Every established order tends to produce the naturalization of its own arbitrariness.
- Pierre Bourdieu


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

I agree...whereas the target of Mr. Journe is other passionate aficionados..the truth is even those who have no clue about watches sometimes end up buying one. Ive seen this in person but not sure if the transaction actually went through. 

And for flippin sake, where is that mod??


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

I have to agree with Tony's central point that on avg high end buyers are probably as susceptible to marketing as any, though not the same tactics as non high end.

Also I reject the notion that the "watch guys" are some special group of horologists who are holier than the idiot masses.

I consider myself and many here "watch guys" but many of us wouldn't know how to repair the simplest ETA movement let alone complicated watches.

What's so special about knowing some facts about watches?

Is buying a Patek because it's "for the next generation" inferior to buying it because the caliber xxx is an in-house movement with hand finishing on x parts that takes x hours with x jewels that beats at x vph and the mechanism of chronograph is executed well by part number x (patent pending) in this magnificent x parts movement.

Are our tastes holier than those who like the hublot mamba and the lebron ROO?
Okay, yes we are since lebron is a piece of .... but I digress.


----------



## Victorhugo80 (Dec 18, 2013)

The moment one considers himself a "discerning/refined/informed hi-end watch customer", he's placed himself in a precise category in which those watchmakers want you to be. Because they produce watches with a certain customer in mind.
Maybe you love the idea that you can explain to someone or just to yourself the reasons why you like a watch or a watchmaker products lineup. But you're just contemplating your own culture.
Now culture, even a very technical/specific one like that regarding watches is always something which you can never enough of; something that that will widen you horizons: "who knows more, sees more".
But you can't deny that everybody can tell that a watch from the manufacturers you're discussing here, "it's a nice watch". So we're not that special in liking these watch. We like the idea that we're special because we can tell *why* we like them.
Just don't try to lose sight of 2 simple facts:
1) Your opinions are a consequence of your culture, education and experience.
2) Watches are a consumer good. Even those costing like a nice house.
I won't insult the intelligence of anyone explaining the implications of these facts.


----------



## seanwontreturn (Aug 9, 2013)

The question should be where Breguet is positioned in this particular group. To me, in terms of "High-End"ity, it's PP>ALS>Breguet>VC>AP. 

Not saying having a consistent history is not significant, I tend to think it's overrated. What the maker did in the past adds to its ongoing value but it matters the most how it's doing now with ALS and FPJ being the perfect samples. I doubt VC's been doing anything for the past couple years except the majestic Patrimony World Time and cannot fully agree with AP staying one of "holy trinity" with its basic 3 handers using JLC movements and suspectably incoporating several different types of modules to them to make so called in house grande complications.


----------

