# Hey all, I made a watch brand hierarchy tier list



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
So here it is (comments welcome):










EDITS since original post:

Bumped Tissot from Enthusiast to Consumer - too mainstream to be an enthusiast watch.
Glashutte Original down to "Luxury" (an average unit sale is more comparable to Omega than Zenith)
Added Epos, Tourby and Mathey-Tissot.
Added Muhle Glashutte (playing in the same kind of space as Longines)
Baume & Mercier down to quasi-luxury
Added Junkers, Meistersinger and Vulcain
Roger Dubuis and Harry Winston moved from Ultra Luxury to High End Luxury
Added Seiko Prospex as a separate brand to Enthusiast (but if I make an exception for one???) and added Dubsy & Shoobadoobee
Column formatting change. Added Eberhard & Co and Eterna (can't believe I forgot Eterna)
Added Pulsar
Glashutte original back up to high-end luxury
Zenith down to luxury (mainly b/c of brand strength)
Mido up to quasi-luxury
Added Nixon, MVMT, Monta, Louis Vuitton, Ralph Lauren and Ressence
Bulgari to luxury
Added Vostok (the original), Revue Thommen and Corum
Panerai down to Luxury, removed the Vincero joke category.
Added Czapek, Armin Strom, Ming, Graham, Kurono, Minase, anOrdian, Habring, ZRC, Formex, Le Jour and Aristo.


----------



## kritameth (Oct 11, 2015)

You absolutely nailed it with Vincero.


----------



## top-quark (Oct 15, 2019)

Actually, not a bad effort. Hermes are a high-end luxury brand, I would say, and whatever talent Franck Muller possessed has largely gone up his nose.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

top-quark said:


> Hermes are a high-end luxury brand


I'm comfortable with where they are on the list in terms of their watches.
The ones I felt were borderline were:


Blancpain - could arguably be bumped up to ultra luxury
Hublot - objectively, there is a case to bump them up to ultra luxury as well (as much as I don't want to admit it)


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> I tried to be as objective as possible


You can't be serious.


----------



## Seidinho (Jan 13, 2018)

Not a bad effort. I disagree with the tudor spot, and think the luxury / high end luxury distinction is extremely subjective. Not sure I agree with your classification / distinction of Omega, Rolex, Cartier, zenith, JLC and panerai. It almost sounds like you based a lot of it purely on pricing.


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

Close enough. Everyone has different opinions. There are a decent that I would feel could move up or down one, which is pretty good in it of itself (it's not like we're moving 2-3 spots). And there are brands that play in very wide ranges.


----------



## Sean Pizzle (Dec 3, 2015)

Rolex isn’t high end.
Also, didn’t Christopher Ward invent the whole affordable luxury by cutting out the middle man schtick?


----------



## Jean1888 (Jul 14, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> View attachment 15774665


lol nice. This is gonna become edited million times


----------



## Dietly (Feb 24, 2018)

I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


----------



## tommy_boy (Jul 11, 2010)

I have now added another brand name to my lengthy and ever-expanding list of known watch brand names: Vincero.


----------



## NC_Hager626 (Sep 20, 2018)

Not a bad effort and it is a start. It should probably be treated as a living document.


----------



## Mr Auto (Apr 29, 2019)

Cant argue with that.

Only change I would make is moving Tissot into the consumer catagory. 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## One-Seventy (Mar 25, 2019)

You got it right putting Hublot and Rolex together given they now cost the same thanks to the grey markup. And as for disruptingthemarketbycuttingoutthemiddleman...


----------



## One-Seventy (Mar 25, 2019)

Dietly said:


> I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


WIS like to think that Omega is a tier above because of oh-the-history etc but the general public doesn't really see it that way, and that drives them up the wall.


----------



## rob3691 (Jan 24, 2021)

Interesting and great topic for discussion. There are several brands I didn't know existed.


----------



## Ginseng108 (May 10, 2017)

Always a good way to start a barfight. 
Anyway...which Seiko line? Sport 5? Seiko? Prospex? Prospex LX? Sub-lines are going to complicate matters.
This would probably work better as a continuum with a zone between the categories..


----------



## godfrey19 (Aug 30, 2018)

This is a great summary! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Here's Johnny (Feb 20, 2021)

Clicked with low expectations, but this is solid. Now I'll follow for the Seiko comments. Consumer watches with quasi luxury prices?  J/k


----------



## TheoTheQ (Aug 14, 2017)

What would be cool is to make the size of the various logos reflect the market share for the respective brand. This would be a great reference to stop me from accidentally buying a "consumer" brand watch when I wanted an "enthusiast" brand one.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Ginseng108 said:


> Always a good way to start a barfight.
> Anyway...which Seiko line? Sport 5? Seiko? Prospex? Prospex LX? Sub-lines are going to complicate matters.
> This would probably work better as a continuum with a zone between the categories..


Seiko obviously doesn't work the same way Swiss watch brands do - they are a mega corporation with lots of sub-labels and Prospex for example could go into Enthusiast and Entry Level luxury.. But I wasn't about to break them up into Presage, Spirit, Alba, Seiko 5 etc etc. I had to go with where the bulk of their sales are and how they are sold (in every shopping mall = consumer).

Grand Seiko and Credor are their own distinct entity, so they get their own entry. Honestly, Credor is all over the place, reflecting Seiko's lack of focus in general as to who they want to market to.


----------



## njkobb (Apr 29, 2012)

This is really tough since so many Brands like Omega, Breitling and Rolex have such diverse histories. Some of their items are higher end horology and some are very simple mass produced movements. Overall great attempt as it’s so subjective. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

You are hereby promoted to chief “watch category triangle tier thingy” member.

I’m happy because my Panerai have become Luxury!! Yeah mon.........


----------



## RobMc (Dec 27, 2015)

I was ready to roll my eyes (and I know there's a punchline at the end) but it's a pretty good grouping. A few placements I'd disagree with, but all in all, a good estimation.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Nov 28, 2008)

It's at least better than the other chart? But there are a lot of problems with this one, too. Biggest one is that there are too many meaningless categories in there. "Entry-level luxury" vs "quasi-luxury?" Come on...

Also, the Vincero thing is funny, but someone's going to copy this image and take it seriously


----------



## Karlskrona Watch Co (Jun 21, 2011)

Casio and Seiko are gods.


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

There's no reality in which Panerai and Rolex belong anywhere near JLC, GO, Chopard, Credor, and Girard-Perregaux.


----------



## Greetings (Jun 9, 2020)

I respectfully disagree with Vincero not being in ultra high end luxury.

Kind Regards


----------



## Ginseng108 (May 10, 2017)

And here is where the limitations and assumptions of this model need to be made clear. Watch "company" is more to the point since you are choosing to lump together distinct sub-brands on aggregated sales volume (how important is this, and where do you get the data?) and (predominant) sales channel (I can get Seiko 5 in the same shop I get Grand Seiko). Is airport duty free the same as a mall? Or a boutique?

So, nice effort and a reasonable starting point for discussions. But if you want it to be useful, then the basis on which you form these categories really need to be spelled out. And yeah, Rolex isn't high end.



Earthjade said:


> Seiko obviously doesn't work the same way Swiss watch brands do - they are a mega corporation with lots of sub-labels and Prospex for example could go into Enthusiast and Entry Level luxury.. But I wasn't about to break them up into Presage, Spirit, Alba, Seiko 5 etc etc. I had to go with where the bulk of their sales are and how they are sold (in every shopping mall = consumer).
> Grand Seiko and Credor are their own distinct entity, so they get their own entry. Honestly, Credor is all over the place, reflecting Seiko's lack of focus in general as to who they want to market to.


----------



## Nokie (Jul 4, 2011)

Very impressive. Nice job.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Tsujigiri said:


> Biggest one is that there are too many meaningless categories in there. "Entry-level luxury" vs "quasi-luxury?" Come on...


Point taken, but these categories were the original ones and I think they work very well. So why is "quasi-luxury" a thing? It means "the appearance of luxury". It makes sense when you need to place other brands in relation to it.

For example - Frederique Constant and Raymond Weil. Very few would say that they are on the same level as Tudor but they are more than consumer watches and not enthusiast (e.g. hobby) watches. Also, it's fair to say that Omega is a slight step above Tudor (at least where they stand in 2021). So the "quasi-category" has a place. Everyone here should be able to "feel" those quasi-luxury brands that are aiming at appearing to be luxury watches but are still reasonably priced and have no ambitions to be more than that. It's not a bad thing at all.


----------



## LudicrousSpeed (Dec 9, 2020)

kritameth said:


> You absolutely nailed it with Vincero.


I was reading the list to see what I haven't yet owned at some point in my life. 
I still need to experience a high end, ultra high end, and a Vincero.


----------



## Histrionics (Feb 5, 2021)

Not bad OP. Definitely a few things I'd move around, but this is better than most.


----------



## scuttle (Dec 15, 2008)

Ginseng108 said:


> And here is where the limitations and assumptions of this model need to be made clear. Watch "company" is more to the point since you are choosing to lump together distinct sub-brands on aggregated sales volume (how important is this, and where do you get the data?) and (predominant) sales channel (I can get Seiko 5 in the same shop I get Grand Seiko). Is airport duty free the same as a mall? Or a boutique?
> So, nice effort and a reasonable starting point for discussions. But if you want it to be useful, then the basis on which you form these categories really need to be spelled out.
> And yeah, Rolex isn't high end.


Most people classify watches based on price, marketing, and arbitrary bs. Even the use of _luxury_ is meaningless. It has nothing to do with any objections to be quality.


----------



## JJ312 (Mar 9, 2019)

Oof, putting Gucci and Sinn next to each other is just wrong. 

Also I think Seiko and Hamilton could be in both the consumer and enthusiast categories.


----------



## desc82 (Dec 28, 2017)

Ginseng108 said:


> Always a good way to start a barfight.
> Anyway...which Seiko line? Sport 5? Seiko? Prospex? Prospex LX? Sub-lines are going to complicate matters.
> This would probably work better as a continuum with a zone between the categories..


I agree that Seiko can hardly be put into only one category, especially given the fact the brand is now targeting the affordable luxury watch market (like the LX line as you mentioned).


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

I am not going to nitpick it....because selfishly it serves my mishmash of watches well LOL


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

njkobb said:


> This is really tough since so many Brands like Omega, Breitling and Rolex have such diverse histories. Some of their items are higher end horology and some are very simple mass produced movements. Overall great attempt as it's so subjective.


Yes. I tried to hit the middle ground of where I think a brand sits. There are plenty of brands that have prestige models and high-horology models but if they are more exceptions than their main models, then that doesn't count (much).

Also, some brands have prestigious histories and that doesn't count for a whole lot here versus what they are making now, how they are sold and what they are pricing it as. Bulova is a good example of this.


----------



## Seidinho (Jan 13, 2018)

Dietly said:


> I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


Have you ever tried / handled a Breitling? Their higher end divers and Navitimer series are great watches in that segment.


----------



## Sandy82579 (Dec 7, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> I'm comfortable with where they are on the list in terms of their watches.
> The ones I felt were borderline were:
> 
> 
> ...


I must be missing something, but I think Blancpain belongs back with Omega.


----------



## Crisker (Oct 25, 2018)

The problem with these kinds of rankings is the category description. This is similar to the issue that vexed Wittgenstein to no end in his famous *musings* on "games."

With this in mind, it blows my mind that Seiko, Citizen, Casio and Orient are relegated to the lowest tier of "Consumer."

These brands (excepting Casio and Orient) have offerings that blow straight up through "Enthusiast" into "Quasi-Luxury" and beyond.

In the end, all these categorizations, rankings, and pigeon-holing efforts get us nowhere.

For the WUS community at least, I'd like to think that each watch is taken on its merits, brand be damned.

For major brands that transgress tiers, each watch should be taken on its own and not pigeon-holed.

Each watch needs to be considered on its own.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

What are the criteria? How were they applied?


----------



## Wrist Hardware (Oct 29, 2020)

Seiko is more than just a consumer brand IMO


----------



## Wandering_Watcher10 (Sep 30, 2016)

This is good work, I think. I would move Tissot up a rank and get Epos and Tourby some love.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

Mediocre said:


> I am not going to nitpick it....because selfishly it serves my mishmash of watches well LOL


Godfrey

Nitpicking because I am bored

I would probably swap Tutima and Bell & Ross.

Where would you place Muhle Glashutte?


----------



## Choice18 (Mar 11, 2021)

I agree that this list is heavily influenced based on a price range but still very solid. Just small things I would say differently:

1. Tissot, Mido, Hamilton, and Certina should be at the same tier. Just like Longines, Rado, and Union.
2. Rolex needs to find their spot and it's not higher.


----------



## Tickclic (Mar 11, 2019)

In order to curtail conflict,each of us can tweak this list as they see fit. 
Everyone is a happy winner that way.
"Living document" is right.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

dbostedo said:


> What are the criteria? How were they applied?


I envisioned a hand-drawn chalk grid on a wall with wet spaghetti thrown to note values, speckled with breaks every 20 minutes for shots of limoncello and scones

In my mind it was as awesome as it sounds


----------



## IllCommunication (Nov 17, 2013)

Sandy82579 said:


> I must be missing something, but I think Blancpain belongs back with Omega.


you are. Blancpain is a clear clear level higher than Omega. They handmake a lot of parts and pieces and hand finish many. Omegas arent really in that game (with a few exceptions). Blancpain is correct there, I would argue Rolex belongs with Omega though.


----------



## Rk1972 (Oct 26, 2019)

Got say I agree with the done buddy pricing comment above. Blancpin is now Swatch so meh. Still cool but I can honestly think of a few Seikos I’d rather own. Is this an ad for Vincero? Lol


----------



## desc82 (Dec 28, 2017)

Crisker said:


> The problem with these kinds of rankings is the category description. This is similar to the issue that vexed Wittgenstein to no end in his famous musings on "games."
> 
> With this in mind, it blows my mind that Seiko, Citizen, Casio and Orient are relegated to the lowest tier of "Consumer."
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. It would not be fair to put these four brands along with fashion watches. Price apart.


----------



## EllipticEquations (Dec 21, 2020)

I appreciate the effort you put into this. But to be honest the high-end luxury and ultra luxury are quite laughable...


----------



## SeizeTheMeans (Dec 11, 2018)

Just glad to see Glycine get mentioned at all.


----------



## The Dark Knight (May 14, 2012)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline. EDIT - bumped Tissot from "Enthusiast" to "Consumer".
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> View attachment 15774786


Not familiar with all these brands. I do feel like Rolex belongs more with Omega, Cartier, and Grand Seiko than JLC, Blancpain, and Glashutte.

Overall looks good, great effort.


----------



## execservicega (Mar 7, 2021)

kritameth said:


> You absolutely nailed it with Vincero.


Do you like Vincero? Ive been thinking of trying them out, with at least one watch....


----------



## KOwatch (Mar 15, 2019)

Fixed it for you:


----------



## JPa (Feb 12, 2016)

Ginseng108 said:


> Always a good way to start a barfight.
> Anyway...which Seiko line? Sport 5? Seiko? Prospex? Prospex LX? Sub-lines are going to complicate matters.
> This would probably work better as a continuum with a zone between the categories..


Seiko should probably be listed in the lower three categories because the seiko 5, sarx line, and marine masters can't be categorized together


----------



## Morgs65 (Oct 2, 2018)

So, I'm merely an enthusiast. LOL


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

Overall, solid effort!


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Choice18 said:


> I agree that this list is heavily influenced based on a price range but still very solid. Just small things I would say differently:
> 
> 1. Tissot, Mido, Hamilton, and Certina should be at the same tier. Just like Longines, Rado, and Union.
> 2. Rolex needs to find their spot and it's not higher.


This is a good point, since Swatch sees Tissot, Mido, Hamilton and Certina at the same general level but their distribution and treatment varies depending on the market Swatch sells into.
However, I believe that Tissot has a broader consumer reach than the other three globally, and more choices for females, which makes them more of a consumer brand than an enthusiast one. It's weird, because "consumer" does not mean it is below "enthusiast". They are just aiming at different markets (although I acknowledge all these brands aim for a broad consumer market, Tissot has the widest reach). and actually, the ranking between those four brands in terms of general price is:

Mido
Hamilton
Certina
Tissot
And the enthusiast category is just that - aimed at watch hobbiests and specialist hobby watches in general. Their price range is all the way from consumer to about entry-level luxury. It's not a strict pyramid.


----------



## E150GT (Feb 24, 2021)

I would never place casio and fossil in the same spot as seiko and citizen.


----------



## samdj615 (Mar 18, 2021)

Although I love Stowa, they too are the "cut out the middle man" group. But you really have to be into watches to recognize them.


----------



## Tanker G1 (Feb 28, 2016)

What is the brand directly below Movado?


----------



## samdj615 (Mar 18, 2021)

I feel like for the luxury sections, we are just going on price points while the others we are focusing on the actual product differentiations. I don't know why Rolex would be lower based on their price points.


----------



## WhiskeyTengu (Jul 15, 2019)

Dietly said:


> I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


And this comment right here, exemplifies the power of Marketing.

Breitling has a heritage that with the appropriate level of Marketing should be among the most popular brands on the market. It's just not been marketed nearly well enough over the years to convince a general audience.

Lots of untapped potential here. I like the new direction they've taken with the Chronnomat 42mm. If they continue down this path, might be a brand to watch flourish over the next decade.

Whereas, the once industry darling, Panerai, has severely fallen from grace to the point where I've actually seen ADs turn down trade ins on Panerai because they have a difficult time finding buyers at an aftermarket price they can profit from reasonably. Again...a marketing issue? 🤔 I know this one goes deeper and almost suffers the same "1 trick pony" problem the Royal Oak has for AP, but at least the RO is a coveted watch in the industry.

But IWC should be above Rolex IMO. They actually make Haute Horology pieces and anyone who is only recognizing their entry level pilots, clearly hasn't been paying attention or is ignoring the IWC Brand heritage.


----------



## chrisnortonsiroc (Sep 9, 2020)

What is Mathey-Tissot? I have one, not sure what it is........vintage, all I know.


----------



## iBleedGarnet (Jan 24, 2011)

Great effort. Saved to my camera roll!


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

KOwatch said:


> Fixed it for you:
> 
> View attachment 15774853


Yep - this is about right. Still works if you replace "Consumer" with "Luxury", too.


----------



## VaKyle (Apr 4, 2019)

Tanker G1 said:


> What is the brand directly below Movado?


Lip, a French brand that I otherwise know nothing about. But pretty sure that's the logo.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

longtimelurker said:


> There's no reality in which Panerai and Rolex belong anywhere near JLC, GO, Chopard, Credor, and Girard-Perregaux.


That's actually a good pick up, but not in the way you probably thought.
GO is probably best placed in Luxury rather than High-End Luxury based on average unit price of the watches they sold in 2020.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

chrisnortonsiroc said:


> What is Mathey-Tissot? I have one, not sure what it is........vintage, all I know.


Mathey Tissot is a consumer brand these days but they have an interesting history. I will add them in the next revision.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> GO is probably best placed in Luxury rather than High-End Luxury based on average unit price of the watches they sold in 2020.


See... this is why you have to lay out your criteria. I had no idea you were referencing that sales data. And I, personally, would not use average sale price as a primary criteria for differentiating those brands.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Nov 28, 2008)

Earthjade said:


> Point taken, but these categories were the original ones and I think they work very well. So why is "quasi-luxury" a thing? It means "the appearance of luxury". It makes sense when you need to place other brands in relation to it.
> 
> For example - Frederique Constant and Raymond Weil. Very few would say that they are on the same level as Tudor but they are more than consumer watches and not enthusiast (e.g. hobby) watches. Also, it's fair to say that Omega is a slight step above Tudor (at least where they stand in 2021). So the "quasi-category" has a place. Everyone here should be able to "feel" those quasi-luxury brands that are aiming at appearing to be luxury watches but are still reasonably priced and have no ambitions to be more than that. It's not a bad thing at all.


Hmm maybe for those particular brands, but it seems like most of the "quasi-luxury" brands there carry more prestige than most of the "entry-luxury" brands in that list. There are a few "consumer" brands that shouldn't by any stretch of the imagination be placed below the "enthusiast" ones, either. I guess if you're going to differentiate between niche hobbyist brands and more popular ones that are at the same level of watchmaking, that should continue all the way up? That would make Rolex a "high end mall brand."


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

dbostedo said:


> See... this is why you have to lay out your criteria. I had no idea you were referencing that sales data. And I, personally, would not use average sale price as a primary criteria for differentiating those brands.


That's because you would probably use a table instead of infographic like a normal person. If the average sales price per unit is the only (or primary) criteria, you would just stack-rank them and control for minor criteria instead of making a vague tier system.


----------



## kritameth (Oct 11, 2015)

execservicega said:


> Do you like Vincero? Ive been thinking of trying them out, with at least one watch....


I don't have any experience with them.


----------



## Stowie (Jul 6, 2020)

Not a bad graphic.

The Vincero category really got me!


----------



## Tanker G1 (Feb 28, 2016)

It's tough because I can easily picture a watch from each group I'd rather have over a watch from the next group up. I'd rather have a Casio or Seiko over a Luminox. A Damasko over a Junghans. A Sinn over a Tag. A Tudor over an Omega. A GS over a Panerai.


----------



## ProdigalGil (Nov 29, 2019)

Vincero! What a classic and timeless piece. 😎


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Tanker G1 said:


> It's tough because I can easily picture a watch from each group I'd rather have over a watch from the next group up. I'd rather have a Casio or Seiko over a Luminox. A Damasko over a Junghans. A Sinn over a Tag. A Tudor over an Omega. A GS over a Panerai.


There's nothing wrong with that.
Price is the main determinant I use to put them into market segments but we all love our watches without necessarily caring about the price.


----------



## DC Lavman (Jan 10, 2014)

Tanker G1 said:


> It's tough because I can easily picture a watch from each group I'd rather have over a watch from the next group up. I'd rather have a Casio or Seiko over a Luminox. A Damasko over a Junghans. A Sinn over a Tag. A Tudor over an Omega. A GS over a Panerai.


Agree 100%.


----------



## rodia77 (Feb 3, 2011)

davestradamus said:


> Casio and Seiko are gods.


Not when Vincero is around.



dbostedo said:


> What are the criteria? How were they applied?


Objective. Objectively.



ProdigalGil said:


> Vincero! What a classic and timeless piece. 😎


A grail for many for sure.


----------



## KirS124 (Jan 3, 2016)

Disagree with a lot.
But a nice try.

In official papers Consumer category is called "Fashion watches" - Why Tissot is there?
Why Alpina is in Enth. and FC in Quasi? That's the same company.


----------



## Tanker G1 (Feb 28, 2016)

KirS124 said:


> Why Alpina is in Enth. and FC in Quasi? That's the same company.


They're both Citizen.


----------



## leadbelly2550 (Jan 31, 2020)

And then, said Max, let the wild rumpus start! 

Is this a lowest common denominator ranking system? a number of brands bridge categories. Seiko has competent watches in the lower five, Tissot bridges to enthusiast and quasi-luxury, for example. in my opinion. 

I might add Orient Star to the 'enthusiast' bucket.


----------



## Yeardley (Feb 20, 2021)

I'd like to comment that as well done as the chart and OP's effort are, the category headings are...awkward. Can't an 'Enthusiast' enjoy expensive brands ? A true WIS enthusiast might purchase a Breguet for its complications. And maybe a non watch enthusiast purchases a Rolex simply for the prestige. Maybe the more expensive Hamiltons cost enough to make them a true luxury for others ? I don't think 'Consumer' 'Enthusiast' and 'Luxury' are the right descriptions. 

Which begs the question of what primary criteria were used in these groupings ? Price ? Quality ? Prestige ? Subjective nature of those classifications and how interconnected they may be notwithstanding, each would invariably produce different results respectively. 

Nonetheless, interesting and I clearly need to research Vincero more.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

I'd swap Glashutte Original and Zenith. And move Steinhart to consumer. But the rest are about spot on.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

Oh, and Panerai should move down to just luxury.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

teckel12 said:


> I'd swap Glashutte Original and Zenith. And move Steinhart to consumer. But the rest are about spot on.
> Oh, and Panerai should move down to just luxury.



Sales wise, GO and Zenith are about equal. Average price wise, GO is comparable to Omega. Zenith has the higher average price closer to Chopard and it's got the history which I start to consider more in the luxury watch space. They are both borderline cases, that's for sure.
I'd put Steinhart into consumer if they were more widely distributed and available. Now they are still a niche brand with limited access,
Panerai have trashed their reputation but their prices are still firmly in high end luxury range. And you can't take their history away from them despite recent missteps.
Here's the thing - if you go by average price of the watches sold, Bell & Ross would be at the top of luxury or in the low part of high-end luxury. Who here would accept that? No one.
They take a hit because they don't have the heritage - so entry-level luxury is where they are placed, which I think is fair.
So what I am saying is that while pricing is the first thing to look at, heritage and history is also in play (or lack thereof).


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

Earthjade said:


> Sales wise, GO and Zenith are about equal. Average price wise, GO is comparable to Omega. Zenith has the higher average price closer to Chopard and it's got the history which I start to consider more in the luxury watch space. They are both borderline cases, that's for sure.
> I'd put Steinhart into consumer if they were more widely distributed and available. Now they are still a niche brand with limited access,
> Panerai have trashed their reputation but their prices are still firmly in high end luxury range. And you can't take their history away from them despite recent missteps.
> Here's the thing - if you go by average price of the watches sold, Bell & Ross would be at the top of luxury or in the low part of high-end luxury. Who here would accept that? No one.
> ...


These were minor quibbles. Oh, and you listed Seiko in two categories I'm sure on accident


----------



## Seidinho (Jan 13, 2018)

Going by average sale price as the main reason for placement makes this a lot less interesting and a lot less debatable.


----------



## claudioange (Nov 3, 2019)

I don't think that Rolex belongs with Credor. Like I don't think that Grand Seiko should be below Rolex. 

I think you should sort them based on the very best that each brand offers, not the average offer. At the end, if they sell it, even if just one model, it means they have manufacturing capabilities and technical knowledge.


----------



## Rodentman (Jul 24, 2013)

I think Guy Clark said it well:

"One man's hawk is another man's dove, one man's hug is another man's shove
One man's rock is another man's sand, one man's fist is another man's hand
One man's tool is another man's toy, one man grief is another man's joy
One man's squawk is another man's sing, one man's crutch is another man's wing
One man's pride is another man's humble, one man's step is another man's stumble
One man's pleasure is another man's pain, one man's loss is another man's gain
One man's can is another man's grail, one man's curse is another man's sail
One man's right is another man's wrong, one man's curse is another man's song

One man's deuce is another man's ace, one man's back is another man's face
One man's reason is another man's rhyme, one man's dollar is another man's dime
One man's tree is another man's post, one man's angel is another man's ghost
One man's rain is another man's drought, one man's hope is another man's doubt
One man's false is another man's fair, one man's toup is another man's hair
One man's hand is another man's stub, one man's feast is another man's grub
One man's dread is another man's dream, one man's sigh is another man's scream
One man's water is another man's wine, one man's daughter leave another man's cryin'

One man's famine is another man's feast, one man's pet is another man's beast
One man's bat is another man's ball, one man's art is another man's scrawl
One man's friend is another man's foe, one man's Joesph is another man's Joe
One man's hammer is another man's nail, one man's freedom is another man's jail
One man's road is another man's rut, one man's if is another man's but
One man's treasure is another man's trash, one man's landin' is another man's crash
One man's word is another man's lie, one man's dirt is another man's sky
One man's skin is another man's color, one man's killer is another man's brother"


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

claudioange said:


> I don't think that Rolex belongs with Credor. Like I don't think that Grand Seiko should be below Rolex.
> 
> I think you should sort them based on the very best that each brand offers, not the average offer. At the end, if they sell it, even if just one model, it means they have manufacturing capabilities and technical knowledge.


So Tag Heuer should be right at the top with the other haute horology brands?

I mean, I don't disagree - they don't get nearly the respect they deserve - and they've produced some amazing watches (that they do sell) that technically rival anything from the very top brands.


----------



## 829maxx (Oct 23, 2019)

Not bad. My two cents:

1) I don’t think Microbrands should be listed. They are their own segment in a sense. 

2) I would flip flop Panerai and Glashutte Original

3) I think Rolex, Omega, and Grand Seiko should all be in the same tier. Which tier that should be is another discussion I’m not going to try and tackle, but they should be on the same level IMO. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

This thread introduced me to Vincero


----------



## Horos (May 8, 2020)

Haha, I laughed out loud with Vincero. Absolutely nailed it! . Great list!

I know the list is subjective, but I would probably rank Rolex and Panerai along with Omega, GS, and Cartier in the luxury tier.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Everyone saying Omega and Rolex are on the same level - not going to happen.
By any objective measure, there is a clear step up between the two brands in terms of prestige and pricing.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 21, 2018)

I would raise the level of Tudor, other than that, not a bad rating system.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 21, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> Everyone saying Omega and Rolex are on the same level - not going to happen.
> By any objective measure, there is a clear step up between the two brands in terms of prestige and pricing.


 More like marketing Kool-Aid and pricing, than actual prestige to those in the know!


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> I would raise the level of Tudor, other than that, not a bad rating system.


I believe Tudor is accurately placed, but it is one of the fastest moving brands at the moment. In a few years time, I can easily see it step higher while most others will likely stay where they are.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2006)

As usual Rolex is way overrated. Cartier way underrated.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Well, at least I have at least 2 - 3 from every category except the "Ultra".

Consumer:
Too many to mention

Enthusiast:
4

Quasi Lux:
3

Entry Level Lux:
2

Lux:
3

High End Lux:
3

Ultra Lux:
0

This is just of the brands mentioned, there are so many more!

OBTW... Arnold & Son in the Ultra Lux...? As much as I love them... not so sure when your talking rarefied air!


----------



## Simon (Feb 11, 2006)

Consumer level watch -


----------



## palletwheel (May 15, 2019)

You forgot to add Parmigiani Fleurier to your ultra luxury list. Like many here have said, it's a pretty credible list, but after looking up Vincero I don't understand why you call them "Affordable Luxury". They look more like a nice consumer brand to me. They use decent Seiko quartz movements and fit the tier below Presage, which you also forgot, and which I think would probably fit your Enthusiast category.


----------



## J__D (Feb 15, 2021)

Earthjade said:


> Everyone saying Omega and Rolex are on the same level - not going to happen.
> By any objective measure, there is a clear step up between the two brands in terms of prestige and pricing.


There is literally no "objective measures" to say Rolex is in a different tier to Omega, maybe different ends of the tier, but in the same group either way.

Even owning both, I can say they're in the same category, same types of buyers (normal consumers and enthusiasts) and the broadly the same brand recognition, I mean look at the 99 million posts comparing the two endlessly.

I would put GS on par with Omega and Rolex, I see no reason why they wouldn't, similar types of watches, unique movements, unique pieces costing a fortune, precious metals etc


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

palletwheel said:


> but after looking up Vincero I don't understand why you call them "Affordable Luxury". They look more like a nice consumer brand to me.


Yeah, look - it's a joke some people will get because "affordable luxury" (an oxymoron) and "cutting out the middleman" are boilerplate statements made by start-up brands that are essentially selling branded Chinese watches and trying to pass them off as something more exclusive than that. But you're right - if Vincero were truly on the list, they would be in consumer.

As for Seiko, don't blame me for where they are on the list. Blame Seiko for making watches all the way up the scale from consumer to entry-level luxury and not thinking maybe having different brand names and identities (other than a subtitle) might have been advantageous for when posters on watch forums decided to make tier lists.


----------



## ffritz (Jun 16, 2013)

Tutima must be placed higher as a brand, they make an in-house minute repeater(!!). That puts them waayy above many of the other brands in several categories.


----------



## ffritz (Jun 16, 2013)

longtimelurker said:


> There's no reality in which Panerai and Rolex belong anywhere near JLC, GO, Chopard, Credor, and Girard-Perregaux.


I agree regarding Rolex.

Panerai though, you mean that reality in which they creates tourbillon movements like this?


----------



## RynoRex82 (Nov 8, 2020)

😂😂😂. well played!


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

ffritz said:


> Tutima must be placed higher as a brand, they make an in-house minute repeater(!!).


I am going by the typical median watch of these brands. It's a fair way to approach this. There are plenty of companies that make high-horology pieces that are an exception to what they generally make. TAG and Tissot are examples. But I'm not about to put TAG into high-end luxury. It's also why Seiko is such a tough one to place given how broad they use their name on their range of products.

In Japan, there is a brand called Kentex. Their philosophy is to make "high-quality watches that appeal to Japanese sensibilities at a reasonable price". That reasonable price is anywhere from $200 to $2,000 USD. I would consider them an enthusiast watch, given their small reach within Japan, the style of their watches (tool watches) and the price brackets they operate in. However, they also make and sell an in-house tourbillon worth many times their next most expensive watch.
Would I bump them up into luxury or high end luxury because they make a tourbillon watch? Uh, no.


----------



## Aspartame (Feb 23, 2020)

palletwheel said:


> You forgot to add Parmigiani Fleurier to your ultra luxury list. Like many here have said, it's a pretty credible list, but after looking up Vincero I don't understand why you call them "Affordable Luxury". They look more like a nice consumer brand to me. They use decent Seiko quartz movements and fit the tier below Presage, which you also forgot, and which I think would probably fit your Enthusiast category.


Vincero is a meme brand, have you ever seen their youtube ad?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## aks12r (May 23, 2017)

Earthjade said:


> I am going by the typical median watch of these brands. It's a fair way to approach this. There are plenty of companies that make high-horology pieces that are an exception to what they generally make. TAG and Tissot are examples. But I'm not about to put TAG into high-end luxury. It's also why Seiko is such a tough one to place given how broad they use their name on their range of products.
> 
> In Japan, there is a brand called Kentex. Their philosophy is to make "high-quality watches that appeal to Japanese sensibilities at a reasonable price". That reasonable price is anywhere from $200 to $2,000 USD. I would consider them an enthusiast watch, given their small reach within Japan, the style of their watches (tool watches) and the price brackets they operate in. However, they also make and sell an in-house tourbillon worth many times their next most expensive watch.
> Would I bump them up into high end luxury because they make a tourbillon watch? Uh, no.
> ...


given that price is a factor then some of the owners of the $6000 Seiko's might expect the brand to be higher than consumer grade. I would also argue that _full vertical integration_ should be the main guide for brand placement. This alone should provide luxury items even if there is excessive range of prices & products (Seiko) or not much range at all ( Roger Smith). For Seiko, maybe split off Credor?


----------



## Mr.Jones82 (Jul 15, 2018)

Dietly said:


> I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


I own watches by both and have handled many and I definitely would not use so-so to describe Breitling. Sure, they're not as popular as Omega and Rolex and their lineup is a bit convoluted due to unnecessary models and distinctions (not so much these days), but the quality is there. The way they engineer their bracelets is very unique (their clasps really suck in comparison to all the work they put into their bracelets) and I actually really love their modified ETAs and prefer them over anything in-house from Omega because Breitling actually does modify these movements as opposed to just tossing a rotor on them and you can go anywhere to get them serviced not just a pricey Omega tech. My COSC Avenger Seawolf is still within COSC standards and it is just a tank. I'd still probably place them slightly below Omega for several reasons, but not too far, especially if we compare chronographs. I'd take the new Chronomats over a Speedy any day of the week.


----------



## americanbam (Dec 14, 2014)

I'm not sure if my glasses need cleaning, but Dubey & Schaldenbrand aren't on the chart?









This is 'Hyacinths' -


----------



## Georgie_Porgie (Jan 31, 2021)

As a proud owner of a Mako 2, I take offence at Orient (and Seiko, Citizen, etc) being in the same category that Calvin Klein, Fossil or Daniel Wellington 😣😂. 

Even though all those brand belong to the same price bracket, I think it very unlikely to see a young person that is into fashion wearing an Orient Triton or a Vostok Komandirskie, hence that should be (imho) split into two different categories, let's say, fashion and entry-level enthusiast.


----------



## G_Garcia (Mar 15, 2021)

Seiko fits in like three different tiers


----------



## G_Garcia (Mar 15, 2021)

The biggest problem I have with these rankings and lists is how they always are based on market logics.


----------



## gekota (Jan 1, 2014)

Agree with the list for the most part, except maybe RD needs to be down a tier.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

gekota said:


> Agree with the list for the most part, except maybe RD needs to be down a tier.


Good point.
I've moved Roger Dubuis and Harry Winston down one tier. They are close, but not enough to be ultra luxury.


----------



## Fatal_emission (Aug 19, 2019)

Gucci would not elevate beyond being a consumer fashion watch to me. Same as any other non specialist watch maker piggy backing off a fashion background.


----------



## GrimFandango (May 8, 2018)

What does the "rank" even mean?

There are many different characteristics of a brand that you could rate. Heritage, innovation, brand recognition, hype, price, specs and so on. And you could assign different weights to each of those. The ranking you'd end up with would be dependent on which characteristics you choose and how much you value them.


----------



## Alcatch (Feb 23, 2021)

I'm really not sure that 'hierarchy' is the correct way to divide watches.
At the lower end Orient and Skagen/Fossil (although I don't know too much about these brands) don't appear to fit in the same category regardless of price or number of units sold.

Also by definition luxury indicates goods with high elasticity which is likely anything other than the consumer goods, so some other metric would likely be more worthwhile here


----------



## chopy_ro (May 2, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...


Nevere heard of those luxurious Vinceros, si i have made a google search...now i hate you !😅


----------



## gioda (Jan 4, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...


Good job. I like this much more than the pyramid I saw the other day......I might disagree on few brands location, but in general I agree with this categorisation.


----------



## dglessner (Oct 22, 2013)

Interesting, and pretty much on target. While an argument can be made to move a particular brand up/down a category, the groupings are pretty solid,

It would be interesting to see where some of the big companies - Swatch, Richemont, etc. - see themselves on a matrix like this. They would likely have something to say about market positioning and perception...


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Fatal_emission said:


> Gucci would not elevate beyond being a consumer fashion watch to me. Same as any other non specialist watch maker piggy backing off a fashion background.


You would think that, but it's not quite so simple.
Gucci is part of the Kering Group, which includes Ulysse Nardin and Girard-Perregaux. Build wise, Gucci watches are not all that much but they've been placed in a market segment where a Gucci watch sells for the same price as an average Longines and they sell OK to boot (almost as much as Tudor sold last year). Gucci is not high-end fashion like Cartier, Dior or Chanel, but they are a step up from other fashion brands like Swatch's Calvin Klein or Emporio Armani.


----------



## FBPB (Aug 1, 2016)

If I may suggest yet another category: Actual Tool Watch

In which you could put Mühle Glashütte (S.A.R. Rescue Timer, S.A.R. Flieger Chronograph and the Seebataillon). They even list these as Tool Watches on their website, and they genuinely are.

Mühle also makes some of their Manufactory line, which to my eye belongs at least in Entry Level Luxury: Robert Mühle Manufactory Line | Mühle-Glashütte

Additionally, Certina and Tissot are on par with each other (at least here in CH). You can find both in the watch part of local department stores, with Tissot being slightly more expensive than Certina. I would put both under Consumer.


----------



## plohmann (Jan 7, 2007)

That's a pretty solid chart. My only change would be moving Longines and Titoni to entry level luxury, but that's justs my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.


----------



## Timeisaflatcircle (May 31, 2017)

The Vincero ranking absolutely cracked me up! Bravo.


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

A lot more sensible than the other one that’s posted up. (Well I think it is anyway)


----------



## Time Exposure (Aug 13, 2010)

I suspect “the Vincero Ranking” will soon rival “Laco World” for WUS Most Puzzling Inside Joke.


----------



## rodia77 (Feb 3, 2011)

Time Exposure said:


> "Laco World"


Fill me in!


----------



## Ragl (Jun 22, 2016)

My mind is now totally scrambled and I'm terminally lost, I can't find the entry level........


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

GrimFandango said:


> What does the "rank" even mean?
> 
> There are many different characteristics of a brand that you could rate. Heritage, innovation, brand recognition, hype, price, specs and so on. And you could assign different weights to each of those. The ranking you'd end up with would be dependent on which characteristics you choose and how much you value them.


According to the OP, this ranking is based on the price and hype of, "the typical median watch of these brands." (This description is spread out over a few posts, but I believe it's accurate.)

That's why, for example, we see Rolex, "punching above their weight," and some others relatively below where they actually stand horologically.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

.


----------



## kiledee16 (Mar 7, 2018)

I like this. I would move Dior out though. I dont think that is a luxury watch. Anything you can get from a mall shouldn't be luxury. 

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## longtimelurker (Oct 16, 2020)

ffritz said:


> I agree regarding Rolex.
> 
> Panerai though, you mean that reality in which they creates tourbillon movements like this?


When they bring some of that awesome watchmaking, creativity and finishing to their non-halo projects, I would definitely consider them more peer with Zenith.


----------



## Mr Auto (Apr 29, 2019)

OP We need a Microbrand tier list 

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

Out of 8 categories 6 are Luxury brands?

Without commenting on everything, I think _Hermè_s is doing an excellent job these days and is certainly an underrated brand.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

Czapek not listed?


----------



## t1ckt0ckio (Feb 9, 2021)

What about an independent watchmaker section? And then move R. Dubois over there.


----------



## alex_b (Jul 16, 2013)

Earthjade said:


> Honestly, Credor is all over the place, reflecting Seiko's lack of focus in general as to who they want to market to.


I think that as so few Credor models are available outside of Japan, it's fair to put them at that level or higher.


----------



## Whitebread (Nov 7, 2020)

Uhren Exclusiv does a yearly ranking list, but those "magazines " are not available in the US, and I cannot get new ones anymore. Here is the list from 2013, split into 2 price groups:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ZisguyZaphod (Feb 20, 2019)

Greetings said:


> I respectfully disagree with Vincero not being in ultra high end luxury.


Super Duper Über Double-_DAWG_ Ultra High End Luxury!


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

kiledee16 said:


> I like this. I would move Dior out though. I dont think that is a luxury watch. Anything you can get from a mall shouldn't be luxury.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk


Apparently... you have not been in some of the malls in Vegas!


----------



## kiledee16 (Mar 7, 2018)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Apparently... you have not been in some of the malls in Vegas!


I have not but there are always exceptions to the rule. Hahaha. I guess its complete crazy 9ut there right?

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Trias (Dec 21, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...





Tsujigiri said:


> It's at least better than the other chart? But there are a lot of problems with this one, too. Biggest one is that there are too many meaningless categories in there. "Entry-level luxury" vs "quasi-luxury?" Come on...
> 
> Also, the Vincero thing is funny, but someone's going to copy this image and take it seriously


I agree with Tsujigiri. There are too many categories for the different luxury levels (6 in total), while only two for the rest. This puts the emphasis on luxury brands, while things are different when you consider the amount of units sold, or even the annual turnover.










I think regular non luxury watch brands could be divided in entry level, midrange, and high end ; while the luxury ones similarly divided into three levels.

This would probably induce Victorinox and Tissot to get into the mid range category, as their first listed watches on their catalogues are about 250-300$ (recommended price), which usually isn't entry level at watchmaker aiming for all publics (contrary to some Casio and Timex models, managing to get way < 50$).

Still, I commend the effort for listing that much brands, and learned a few ones in the ultra-luxury category. And even if doing so will expose you to a lot of criticism, I also appreciate you being open to critics and suggestions.


----------



## justin33 (Oct 19, 2020)

Georgie_Porgie said:


> As a proud owner of a Mako 2, I take offence at Orient (and Seiko, Citizen, etc) being in the same category that Calvin Klein, Fossil or Daniel Wellington .
> 
> Even though all those brand belong to the same price bracket, I think it very unlikely to see a young person that is into fashion wearing an Orient Triton or a Vostok Komandirskie, hence that should be (imho) split into two different categories, let's say, fashion and entry-level enthusiast.


Very true. I think it's safe to say that Orient, Seiko and Citizen owners would have watch knowledge of some sort. Even though they are big companies so obviously there will be a proportion of "pure average consumers" who do buy those brands.

In contrast, Fossil, DW, Boss, Gucci etc should be in their own tier of "fashion watches". And I know Gucci charge a lot so it may be considered "luxury" but in would be in fashion. Luxury fashion items but not "high-end" watches. Maybe we should use the word "high-end" to separate overpriced fashion watches from products of actual watchmaking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## justin33 (Oct 19, 2020)

Glad to know the sales of Carl F. Bucherer. My dad bought one from his trip to Switzerland and when he showed it to me it was the first time I heard of the brand. I had absolutely no knowledge of the brand at the time so I was quite amazed to hear what he paid for the watch. 

Apparently, they’re more popular in Europe than here in North America. I’ve hardly ever seen the brand discussed in forums. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

@Earthjade
Sorry for the question, but: What is the purpose of this list?

I would also be interested to know on what basis you made the classification.
For example, you put IWC under "Luxury", Rolex under "High-end Luxury" and Piaget under "Ultra Luxury".
Why is a manufacturer that develops and builds highly complicated movements in-house (e.g. Portugieser Constant-Force Tourbillon Edition (250,000 sFr | $270,000) and Portugieser Sidérale Scafusia (750,000 sFr | $800,000)) put on the same level with Breitling and Omega, whose biggest available complications are the date display and chronograph function?


----------



## Bucks (Mar 7, 2016)

Pretty close in my opinion. Rolex and Panerai need to be dropped down a tier. Seiko, hmmmm, needs to be in a few different tiers, if not on price just on innovation and iconic status. Omega, Cartier, Breitling, Rolex, Panerai belong together- regardless of what the plethora of adverts say. These brands should always be in the same sentence. And Seagull should also be in a few different tiers as they have entry level pieces but also tourbillons, etc and use precious metals.


----------



## SDor (Mar 7, 2019)

Moonshine Runner said:


> @Earthjade
> Sorry for the question, but: What is the purpose of this list?


Not the OP, but I take the purpose of this list to give us something to argue, no discuss, while bored in varying stages of pandemic lockdown. It was also to make a joke about Vinceros.

It's my subjective opinion that this is all subjective so there's no "right answer" so all we can do is discuss (and chuckle at the joke)


----------



## Greetings (Jun 9, 2020)

ZisguyZaphod said:


> Super Duper Über Double-_DAWG_ Ultra High End Luxury!


Are you currently on the waiting list of 55 million years for Vincero ?

Regards


----------



## top-quark (Oct 15, 2019)

Quasi- and entry-level luxury is a hard place to be. $5k-or-therabouts+ is not hurting too much and brands that sell to enthusiasts (your Sinn / Damasko level) will still be able to sell to enthusiasts. Entry-level luxury is problematic, however: once you've made the mental hurdle to spend $1k on a watch it's not a big step to spend $5k,

Interestingly, the Swatch lower end is repositioning itself in the enthusiast segment. The Longines Skin Diver is a watch-nerd watch, not a mainstream one. Likewise Rado Captain Cook. Coronageddon will result in major market corrections, While Baume & Mercier allow Richemont to fight against the lower echelons of Swatch Group, is that a fight they want to have? Or will they be better off starting at Cartier?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Trias said:


> I agree with Tsujigiri. There are too many categories for the different luxury levels (6 in total), while only two for the rest. This puts the emphasis on luxury brands, while things are different when you consider the amount of units sold, or even the annual turnover.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a difficult proposition.

1) It will not solve the Japanese problem of being in many tiers (it will make it worse - where do I place Seiko, Citizen and Orient who would be all over those tiers?)
2) High-end consumer watches are the quasi-luxury watches (essentially)
3) In my opinion, Enthusiast watches run in parallel to Consumer watches, Quasi-luxury watches and entry-Level luxury watches

What do others think? Is it worth it to try and break this up even further or is the current grouping generally indicative and OK?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Chris Stark said:


> Out of 8 categories 6 are Luxury brands?
> 
> Without commenting on everything, I think _Hermè_s is doing an excellent job these days and is certainly an underrated brand.


I consider quasi-luxury to be closer to consumer and enthusiast than the luxury tiers that come above it.
Vincero is in a class of its own. Luxury is not a strong enough word to describe it.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Moonshine Runner said:


> @Earthjade
> Sorry for the question, but: What is the purpose of this list?
> 
> I would also be interested to know on what basis you made the classification.
> ...


Mainly average unit price of a watch sale to settle on initial placing.


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

Moonshine Runner said:


> @Earthjade
> Sorry for the question, but: What is the purpose of this list?
> 
> I would also be interested to know on what basis you made the classification.
> ...


The OP is a sales rep for _Vincero_ watches.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Moonshine Runner said:


> @Earthjade
> ...
> Why is a manufacturer that develops and builds highly complicated movements in-house (e.g. Portugieser Constant-Force Tourbillon Edition (250,000 sFr | $270,000) and Portugieser Sidérale Scafusia (750,000 sFr | $800,000)) put on the same level with Breitling and Omega, whose biggest available complications are the date display and chronograph function?


I was just at a Breitling sponsored event and there were some very special pieces shown. The one that I was particularly drawn to, was this full Perpetual Calendar (this, the rattrapante and possibly the foudroyante) are the most difficult complications to make.



This was truly beautiful (I got to talking with one of the guests and actually talked him into getting it! By far, my best enabling effort to date [it was $30K!])

I also have a TAG Tourbillon so, as mentioned above... there are exceptions to nearly every brand!!


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Apparently... you have not been in some of the malls in Vegas!


Nor do I believe Vegas counts.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> I was just at a Breitling sponsored event and there were some very special pieces shown. The one that I was particularly drawn to, was this full Perpetual Calendar (this, the rattrapante and possibly the foudroyante) are the most difficult complications to make.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If Tag only made that in size designed for humans to wear...


----------



## Baka1969 (Dec 29, 2017)

Alallthetime said:


> You can't be serious.


"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

teckel12 said:


> Nor do I believe Vegas counts.


OK... but I can buy Pateks in the mall here outside DC (along with a lot of other luxury or high-end brands). I don't understand the "mall" criteria at all.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

Seidinho said:


> Going by average sale price as the main reason for placement makes this a lot less interesting and a lot less debatable.


Not really, I've seen some average sale prove listings and they seem wrong. Like Hamilton was list for something like $1200. No way that's the average!


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

dbostedo said:


> OK... but I can buy Pateks in the mall here outside DC (along with a lot of other luxury or high-end brands). I don't understand the "mall" criteria at all.


Maybe Macy's and Nordstrom, pinnacles of any mall, including Tysons Corner.


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

Baka1969 said:


> "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."


Airplane!
1969, eh? Not many people know the movie these days.


----------



## Baka1969 (Dec 29, 2017)

Earthjade said:


> Everyone saying Omega and Rolex are on the same level - not going to happen.
> By any objective measure, there is a clear step up between the two brands in terms of prestige and pricing.


Ironically this perception was reversed some decades back. Where the Omega held a more prestigious position than Rolex.

In my opinion I think of them as on very similar levels. But generally, we as WUS (or WIS), are more informed than most non enthusiasts.

We can put certain watches above others in different categories that most people have never heard of. If name recognition were a sole criteria 90% of the watches would never make the list.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Alallthetime said:


> Maybe Macy's and Nordstrom, pinnacles of any mall, including Tysons Corner.


Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying the person who claimed that "Anything you can get from a mall shouldn't be luxury" , was really referring to Macy's and Nordstrom rather than "a mall"?


----------



## Baka1969 (Dec 29, 2017)

Alallthetime said:


> Airplane!
> 1969, eh? Not many people know the movie these days.


I'm older than dirt. Either way, it's a classic movie. I do believe it was 1980 though. I was born in 1969.


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

dbostedo said:


> Are you saying the person who claimed that "Anything you can get from a mall shouldn't be luxury" , was really referring to Macy's and Nordstrom rather than "a mall"?


Something like that. Or Bloomingdale's. A mall will survive without Liljenquist and Beckstead, and Lenkersdofer, or all three of them - but close any department store, and the mall will die.


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

Baka1969 said:


> I was born in 1969.


That's what I mean, young man.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Alallthetime said:


> Something like that. Or Bloomingdale's. A mall will survive without Liljenquist and Beckstead, and Lenkersdofer, or all three of them - but close any department store, and the mall will die.


Umm.. OK. Not sure what that has to do with the original point I was replying to.


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

dbostedo said:


> Not sure what that has to do with the original point I was replying to


I guess I'll mind my own business then, before your irony gets unbearable.


----------



## ndrs63 (Dec 30, 2017)

You are comparing Vincero to Omega???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Baka1969 (Dec 29, 2017)

Alallthetime said:


> That's what I mean, young man.


Thank you! I wish!

I'm 52 in the body of a 72 year old (real health issues), with the mind of a 32 year old and libido of a much younger person.

Every morning is a new pain and every night are constant trips to the lavatory.

TMI? ?


----------



## Azizu (May 4, 2018)

kritameth said:


> You absolutely nailed it with Vincero.


 man you spotted Vincero out of that big list


----------



## jpfgiii (Nov 5, 2012)

dbostedo said:


> Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying the person who claimed that "Anything you can get from a mall shouldn't be luxury" , was really referring to Macy's and Nordstrom rather than "a mall"?





dbostedo said:


> OK... but I can buy Pateks in the mall here outside DC (along with a lot of other luxury or high-end brands). I don't understand the "mall" criteria at all.


Indeed - bought my Lange and GO in a mall. Looked at Pateks, Breguet and Vacheron in the mall. Malls differ throughout the world (those were in Abu Dhabi & Dubai).


----------



## rodia77 (Feb 3, 2011)

ndrs63 said:


> You are comparing Vincero to Omega???
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Omega to Vincero, more like.


----------



## Alallthetime (Oct 21, 2020)

Baka1969 said:


> TMI?


Not at all. People who remember _Airplane!_ have special connection. It's kind of brotherhood.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Alallthetime said:


> I guess I'll mind my own business then, before your irony gets unbearable.


I'm not trying to be ironic at all... I'm just trying to clearly understand what the anchor stores at a mall have to do with the original contention that if you can buy it in a mall, it's not luxury.


----------



## Raym0016 (Oct 31, 2012)

Monta? They are quasi luxury in my opinion


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Raym0016 said:


> Monta? They are quasi luxury in my opinion


I didn't put Monta in because I'm not sure they have graduated past being a microbrand and if I put microbrands in here, the list would explode and 90% of them would go into the same category anyway. I do realise that there are some borderline cases, though. You could argue that:

Steinhart
Farer
Christopher Ward (less so in the past few years, though)
are microbrands.
I added Steinhart because they are a popular brand around here and Farer out of personal bias (I like them and they seem much more commercial than your basic microbrand).
I was thinking of adding Zelos as well but decided against it for now because they still operate like a microbrand with limited runs that sell out. Same with the Rolex of microbrands, Halios.

And I agree that Monta would be quasi-luxury. Right from the beginning they were aiming at a higher quality image than an average microbrand (with prices to match).


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Baka1969 said:


> Ironically this perception was reversed some decades back. Where the Omega held a more prestigious position than Rolex.
> 
> In my opinion I think of them as on very similar levels. But generally, we as WUS (or WIS), are more informed than most non enthusiasts.


This is true. In decades past, Rolex was just one of the pack like many other Swiss brands. Surviving the quartz crisis really raised their fortunes. Omega took a hit to their brand standing by being bought out by Swatch, although their innovation has never waned.

One thing people never consider in the Rolex vs Omega fight is that Rolex has done a much better job at marketing to women and make many more precious metal and jeweled watches. This is firmly luxury. Omega in general is pretty weak here. The De Ville lineup has never really shaken things up. Add the fact that an average Rolex sale is almost twice the value of an average Omega sale and it's clear Rolex is operating on another level in 2021 to Omega.


----------



## Moonshine Runner (Sep 29, 2016)

Earthjade said:


> Mainly average unit price of a watch sale to settle on initial placing.


... and you rate the $200 Vincero quartz things above Seiko, Citizen and Tissot? Seriously?

Where is actually Corum and again the question, because you have so far avoided the answer: What is this list good for?



Chris Stark said:


> The OP is a sales rep for _Vincero_ watches.


That explains a lot 
Vincero was actually unknown to me until yesterday, but now that I've had a look at their website, I have to conclude for myself: Nix missed!
The marketing reminds me of Sternglas, the design of the watches is arbitrary and you've seen it a thousand times.



I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> I was just at a Breitling sponsored event and there were some very special pieces shown. The one that I was particularly drawn to, was this full Perpetual Calendar (this, the rattrapante and possibly the foudroyante) are the most difficult complications to make.
> [&#8230;]


I can't find a corresponding watch in the current Breitling catalog.
Moreover I doubt that Breitling's complications are more complex to realize than the combination of tourbillon with integrated constant force mechanism and perpetual calendar with displays for leap year and absolute day in the year and an individually calculated star chart showing the starry sky at the customer's location, combined with the display of sunrise and sunset together with displays for day, night and twilight, and the additional display of ecliptic and celestial equator and sidereal time in just one watch.

... and by the way: when IWC presented the "Il Destriero Scafusia" in 1993 to mark the company's 125th anniversary, it took the "Grande Complication" presented in 1990 up a notch technically. For a long time, the "Il Destriero Scafusia" was considered the most complicated wristwatch in the world. The fact that IWC is extremely competent in movement construction is unfortunately often overlooked, because many self-proclaimed experts and "Watch Brand Hierarchy Tier List" compilers reduce the Schaffhausen company to an ETA and Sellita watchmaker.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

teckel12 said:


> If Tag only made that in size designed for humans to wear...


The 1st pix didn't load correctly.



I do have 8", rather flat wrists. Not a single complaint here.



Baka1969 said:


> "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."





Alallthetime said:


> Airplane!
> 1969, eh? Not many people know the movie these days.





Baka1969 said:


> I'm older than dirt. Either way, it's a classic movie. I do believe it was 1980 though. I was born in 1969.





Alallthetime said:


> Not at all. People who remember _Airplane!_ have special connection. It's kind of brotherhood.


"Do not go mistaking paradise for a pair of long legs" - Watts


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> The 1st pix didn't load correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, huge IMHO. Which is a shame as I really love the watch other than the size.


----------



## teckel12 (Oct 22, 2019)

teckel12 said:


> Yeah, huge IMHO. Which is a shame as I really love the watch other than the size.


To be fair, I have a 6" wrist, so it would be a little odd looking on me. In your case, you probably can pull it off. It is a beautiful watch, nonetheless.


----------



## wheelbuilder (Nov 25, 2016)

The number of people who have taken the "Vincero" thing seriously is really sad. 

Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## alex_b (Jul 16, 2013)

ndrs63 said:


> You are comparing Vincero to Omega???


Vincero is incomparable, that's why it needs a category of its own.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Can't believe I needed to put an emote next to the Vincero category. It's like an American sitcom where they tell a joke and then explain it to you. Just kills the humour.


----------



## rodia77 (Feb 3, 2011)

wheelbuilder said:


> The number of people who take the brand hierarchy thing seriously is really sad.


FIFY.


----------



## Johann23 (Nov 20, 2019)

Aside from the perpetual argument that I’m sure that this post will create, I think you did a pretty good job.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

RollieMoly said:


> Aside from the perpetual argument that I'm sure that this post will create, I think you did a pretty good job.


What I found out is - the line between luxury and high-end luxury is very thin and it is kind of arbitrary.
However, most people here would say that JLC is a better company than Omega and Breitling, so JLC , the watchmaker's watchmaker, was kind of my anchor for the "high-end luxury tier". Conversely, Omega was my anchor for "luxury" tier. Anything close to JLC was high-end. Anything closer to Omega was luxury. Ultra luxury is clear-cut and not a problem.

The other issue was the blurring of lines between some brands in "Entry level" and "quasi-luxury". I used a similar technique here using Tudor as my anchor for entry and Oris as my anchor for quasi-luxury.

Finally, some brands took a hit because their reputation is weak. For example, by just going on numbers, Bell & Ross deserves to be in luxury tier and truthfully, Grand Seiko is probably more objectively placed in "entry-level luxury" based on their overall line-up. However, people would jump up and down if Bell & Ross were on the same level as IWC and Omega and I kind of agree with that - there is a massive difference in prestige here. People would also complain about Grand Seiko being lower because their quality models really do match other luxury models but in my mind, they make quite a lot of quartz models that sell at entry-level luxury prices and that SHOULD knock them down a peg, but Snowflake and Spring Drive so what are you gonna do? Still, no one has complained about the Grand Seiko placement so I think I got it right.


----------



## ShortOnTime (Dec 22, 2013)

Nice list! I expected to be irritated but I generally agree on the groupings. I think some are more of a judgement call. I could see Tudor being in at least 2 categories for example. I suspect the rationale had to do with both the cost of the watches and perception of the brands. Perceptions are pretty subjective. 

I have a Tudor, Rolex, and GO watch. The GO is way prettier than the Tudor or Rolex. I would put the brand above both, but that's me. My Rolex and Tudor are achingly similar, IMO. As watches go, I could see them in the same category. But when it comes to perception, both are lower than Rolex. 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ShortOnTime said:


> But when it comes to perception, both are lower than Rolex.


Whose perception?


----------



## Johann23 (Nov 20, 2019)

Earthjade said:


> What I found out is - the line between luxury and high-end luxury is very thin and it is kind of arbitrary.
> However, most people here would say that JLC is a better company than Omega and Breitling, so JLC , the watchmaker's watchmaker, was kind of my anchor for the "high-end luxury tier". Conversely, Omega was my anchor for "luxury" tier. Anything close to JLC was high-end. Anything closer to Omega was luxury. Ultra luxury is clear-cut and not a problem.
> 
> The other issue was the blurring of lines between some brands in "Entry level" and "quasi-luxury". I used a similar technique here using Tudor as my anchor for entry and Oris as my anchor for quasi-luxury.
> ...


Yeah well, I for one appreciate the work you're doing. I always look at these pyramids on Google images and I find them sort of interesting. Everyone here should appreciate the fact that you're the one willing to take a bunch of bullets to organize it.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> Whose perception?


Do you really need to ask that?
In everyone that isn't a WIS's perception. And then half the WIS agree with it anyway.

Look, we all understand that quality wise, there isn't much separating a whole bunch of other brands from Rolex all the way down to quasi-luxury tier. But Rolex have done such an amazing job with their brand management that you can't ignore the aura they've created around themselves as being "the premier watch brand in the world". Things warp around the Rolex brand like some kind of cosmic anomaly.
Sure, it leaves WIS flabbergasted, frustrated and confrontational about it, but it is what it is. And it counts for something. It counts for a lot. Luxury is about desiring unnecessary things that are not easy to get and therefore can be used to show a kind of status. Rolex has achieved this in spades.

Imagine if you made a tier listing but instead did it on the achievements of the watch company or "build quality". Can you imagine how controversial such a list would be as people argued over which achivements were more relevant or of greater value? Or that this case is better machined? It would be crazy.
People complain about me using price to put the tiers together but it's one of the few objective things you can actually look at when saying X is greater than Y.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> Do you really need to ask that?
> In everyone that isn't a WIS's perception. And then half the WIS agree with it anyway.
> 
> Look, we all understand that quality wise, there isn't much separating a whole bunch of other brands from Rolex all the way down to quasi-luxury tier. But Rolex have done such an amazing job with their brand management that you can't ignore the aura they've created around themselves as being "the premier watch brand in the world". Things warp around the Rolex brand like some kind of cosmic anomaly.
> ...


Well sure, to all of that I guess... but I just was wondering if @ShortOnTime was talking about folks on WUS, or the general public.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

ShortOnTime said:


> Nice list! I expected to be irritated but I generally agree on the groupings. I think some are more of a judgement call. I could see Tudor being in at least 2 categories for example. I suspect the rationale had to do with both the cost of the watches and perception of the brands. Perceptions are pretty subjective.
> 
> I have a Tudor, Rolex, and GO watch. The GO is way prettier than the Tudor or Rolex. I would put the brand above both, but that's me. My Rolex and Tudor are achingly similar, IMO. As watches go, I could see them in the same category. But when it comes to perception, both are lower than Rolex.


Good points all. Here's my two cents:


I didn't use aesthetics or build quality in placing the brands. This is too impractical and subjective.
Perception and heritage played the next greatest roles after price bracket.
There are several brands that could straddle two categories so my reference point was a "typical watch" (whatever that is) but also the cost of entry into the brand. For example, Longines, Sinn and Tudor all have models that overlap in price but the "cost of entry" to get into the Longines and Sinn brands is lower than that for Tudor. So that "cost of entry" also played a role.
Tudor is where it is because in one sense that's where Rolex want them to be as well - as an "affordable luxury" alternative to Rolex. A lot of the brands are in the tiers they are not because they are inferior watches that can't make it into higher tiers but because that's the market segment their parent company wants them to target. Longines is firmly dominating the quasi-luxury tier and Swatch group doesn't need (or want) them to step up into luxury.


----------



## Johann23 (Nov 20, 2019)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

GO and IWC, especially GO, target a much higher market than Rolex no? They make moonphases and jumping seconds and weird gold pieces etc. They are pretty much identical to JLC in that regard imo.


----------



## tricky92 (Apr 20, 2020)

kritameth said:


> You absolutely nailed it with Vincero.


I literally laughed out loud when I got to that...


----------



## WatchBorder (Apr 25, 2016)

Isnt Oris superior than Tag?


----------



## LeeBos (May 7, 2017)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...


And where does my Seiko Astron fit in?


----------



## Swans21 (Jan 20, 2012)

Well done to the OP ... I would include myself in the chorus of those thinking this thread would turn into Armageddon, because at the end of the day, it is near impossible to definitively assign watch brands to specific categories in which all their offerings fit, much less define these categories. 

Plus. most people will find fault with such categorizations based on a watch they may own or their perception of a watch they want to own ... I think the tenor of the conversation on this thread - and lack of people taking brand assignments personally - is a testament to the work and thought that the OP put into it.

At the end of the day, it's similar to ratings in sports - they are never 100% accurate, but their true purpose is to spur a conversation on topics we love.


----------



## JackDash (Apr 21, 2018)

Tanker G1 said:


> What is the brand directly below Movado?


Oops


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

I would understand these "tiers" better if shown in the form of a _Pyramid_. 🤣


----------



## Steverino 417 (Feb 5, 2021)

Really interesting piece of work and thanks to the OP for putting the effort in.

Its obviously subjective around the margins of some classifications but I would say most of these fit with the brands I know. The ones where I would have classed differently would be these:

Alpina and Mido up 1 into quasi luxury
Ball and Oris up 1 into entry level luxury
Breitling down 1 into entry level luxury
Panerai and Rolex down 1 into Luxury (unless the only criteria is what you pay for them  )

No offence to owners of relegated brands - I own one...


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

WatchBorder said:


> Isnt Oris superior than Tag?


I would say no. Tag makes a huge variety of watches, some entry level types - like the F1 or the Aquaracer, but they've also made legitimately 'haute horology' pieces with tourbillons and 1/1000 of a second chronographs, and belt-driven watches. Pretty impressive.


----------



## WatchBorder (Apr 25, 2016)

TheWalrus said:


> I would say no. Tag makes a huge variety of watches, some entry level types - like the F1 or the Aquaracer, but they've also made legitimately 'haute horology' pieces with tourbillons and 1/1000 of a second chronographs, and belt-driven watches. Pretty impressive.


yeah...but 90% of the watches they sell are probably F1, Aquaracer and Carrera, and their quality is inferior to Oris IMHO.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

WatchBorder said:


> yeah...but 90% of the watches they sell are probably F1, Aquaracer and Carrera, and their quality is inferior to Oris IMHO.


Well I don't know about that stat. The Autavia seems popular, too. I've never owned either, but I have looked at both, and I didn't see any immediate difference in quality between say, a Chronoris and a Carrera, or a Aquis and an Aquaracer. But again, limited personal experience.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Tomatoes11 said:


> GO and IWC, especially GO, target a much higher market than Rolex no? They make moonphases and jumping seconds and weird gold pieces etc. They are pretty much identical to JLC in that regard imo.


Yes, in terms of how they try to position themselves. But this chart was made with average sale price as the first criteria (from this article: Top 50 Swiss Watch Brands of 2020 Market Share - Editorial). Rolex, predictably, can charge a lot more than where it's generally slotted from a marketing perspective.

For example, Rolex's average sale price is estimated to be $9822, whereas GO is $5733, and JLC is $8514.



WatchBorder said:


> Isnt Oris superior than Tag?





TheWalrus said:


> I would say no. Tag makes a huge variety of watches, some entry level types - like the F1 or the Aquaracer, but they've also made legitimately 'haute horology' pieces with tourbillons and 1/1000 of a second chronographs, and belt-driven watches. Pretty impressive.





WatchBorder said:


> yeah...but 90% of the watches they sell are probably F1, Aquaracer and Carrera, and their quality is inferior to Oris IMHO.


Per what I wrote above and the question here, TAG's average sale price is $2391, and Oris is $2400. Now that doesn't speak to actual quality one way or the other, but does help explain why they were put where they are in the chart.

This post has a nice list of average price from the article, top to bottom: Watch hierarchy


----------



## sigma2chi (Feb 22, 2018)

I could make an argument to put Oris in the entry level luxury but otherwise it's spot on i think. 👍


----------



## Steverino 417 (Feb 5, 2021)

Also I think that Muhle Glashutte should go up 1 to entry level luxury.


----------



## JackDash (Apr 21, 2018)

And to the chagrin of the blue hairs and a lot of watch nerds .... one final category ......


🥇THE ULTIMATE - MOST DESIRED🥇

THE NUTS .....

ROLEX



The ONLY watch desired by the overwhelming percentage of the world ..... and everyone knows it .... even if they won’t admit it

the only watch that takes the prize as the most desirable.... especially if you only have ONE choice of watches

and the ONLY WATCH THE HOLDS VALUE ..... plus more !!!!


----------



## EyeDoubleYouSee (Aug 22, 2020)

Hublot is too high


----------



## terrasur (Sep 29, 2017)

Impressively well thought out, to be honest. I twitched a little when I saw Rolex sitting above Grand Seiko, given the level of finishing and horology that goes into their watches is, by most objective measures, a step above the luxury tool watches that Rolex does. But nonetheless they are a less desired brand and you can get one for cheaper (which is part of what makes them such a great buy if you like the aesthetics). Likewise it's a shame how low Longines sits given their history; I'm sure they've positioned themselves to sell a lot of watches but they could quite easily move upmarket into the space that Omega and Rolex are vacating in the way Tudor seems to be doing.

Surprised to see Credor out of the ultra-high category. Aren't they doing high 5- and 6-figure pieces?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

LeeBos said:


> And where does my Seiko Astron fit in?


Probably quasi-luxury.



Chris Stark said:


> I would understand these "tiers" better if shown in the form of a Pyramid. ?


If I did it in a pyramid, then enthsiast would be one side of the base while consumer and quasi-luxury made up the other side of the base. Then the luxury tiers would be sitting above them. That's how I'd imagine it, anyway.



Steverino 417 said:


> Really interesting piece of work and thanks to the OP for putting the effort in.
> Its obviously subjective around the margins of some classifications but I would say most of these fit with the brands I know. The ones where I would have classed differently would be these:
> 
> Alpina and Mido up 1 into quasi luxury
> ...


Alpina I disagree with but tehre is definitely a case to move Mido up into quasi-luxury given they are the most expensive brand out of what I call "the basic 4" of the Swatch Group (Tissot, Certina, Hamilton and Mido).
Ball is in the right spot - their cost of entry is not high and comparable to other quasi-luxury brands and while they have an interesting history, their brand power is relatively mild. Oris is also in the right spot for now in my estimation BUT with their new in-house movement, they are definitely aiming to move up, so we'll see in a few years where they are. The difference between Oris and other brands is that since they are independent, they will want to move up and improve whereas other brands under larger conglomerates are usually assigned a market segment to operate in while other brands handle the higher priced products.
Breitling I would not even consider moving down. Their main model, the Navitimer, is firmly a luxury-grade watch.
Panerai and Rolex are in the right places, given their pricing. Quality-wise, I can see Panerai being in luxury but thing is they command high-end luxury prices. Rolex is always going to be the most looked at brand but I am more comfortable with them being high end than being in luxury. They have such an extensive precious metal and jewelled range that everyone saying "they should be lower" always forgets, because they're fixated on Seamasters and Submariners.



WatchBorder said:


> yeah...but 90% of the watches they sell are probably F1, Aquaracer and Carrera, and their quality is inferior to Oris IMHO.


I agree that TAG is tricky and there is a good argument for them being in quasi-luxury instead because their cost of entry is relatively low for their cheaper models. I think the main reason they are in entry-level instead is the Heuer factor - it brings them up. Everyone would agree that a Monaco or Autavia are at the very least an entry-level luxury watches while an Aquaracer is probably a quasi-luxury watch. TAG is tricky, but I'm OK putting them where they are.



dbostedo said:


> This post has a nice list of average price from the article, top to bottom: Watch hierarchy


That chart is the main reason I want to knock Chopard into luxury tier as well. You can also tell looking at that hierarchy the rough price-levels set for the categories in the graphic. Just bear in mind that the main difference between luxury and high-end luxury is that JLC has to be at a higher level than Omega (generally speaking) and I think most WIS are OK with that.



sigma2chi said:


> I could make an argument to put Oris in the entry level luxury but otherwise it's spot on i think. ?


I agree. Oris are an independent brand and are clearly setting themselves for bigger things.
Tudor and Oris are two brands I can see moving up a level in a few years time but one thing Oris would have to do is start raising the minimum price of their cheaper models. In my rough estimation, it take around $1500 to be the cheapest model in an entry-level luxury brand. The older Aquis and 65 do this, but the big pointer dates can be had cheaper (I think?)



Steverino 417 said:


> Also I think that Muhle Glashutte should go up 1 to entry level luxury.


No way. I'm comfortable with where they are as I see Sinn and Longines being at at their level.



JackDash said:


> The ONLY watch desired by the overwhelming percentage of the world ..... and everyone knows it .... even if they won't admit it
> 
> the only watch that takes the prize as the most desirable.... especially if you only have ONE choice of watches


This "Rolex factor" is also one of the reasons that Rolex would never be just a luxury tier watch, even if you can somehow ignore an average Rolex sale being almost twice the price of an average Omega sale.



RotorSelfWinding said:


> Hublot is too high


In a just world, they would be lower, but the prices they go for are insane.
Like a poor man's Richard Mille.



terrasur said:


> Likewise it's a shame how low Longines sits given their history; I'm sure they've positioned themselves to sell a lot of watches but they could quite easily move upmarket into the space that Omega and Rolex are vacating in the way Tudor seems to be doing.
> Surprised to see Credor out of the ultra-high category. Aren't they doing high 5- and 6-figure pieces?


Don't feel sorry for Longines. They are dominating, absolutely dominating the quasi-luxury tier in terms of sales and that is exactly where the Swatch Group wants them positioned - to catch the consumers that want a nice, quality watch from a strong brand but are not willing to pay more than about $3000. Swatch Group has Omega for those looking to spend more.

As for Credor, there's actually a case to knock them lower. Go to the Seiko boutique and you can see brand-new Credors for sale for just over $3000 Australian. I'm surprised more people haven't called out that Credor ranking,, actually.


----------



## godfrey19 (Aug 30, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> Probably quasi-luxury.
> 
> If I did it in a pyramid, then enthsiast would be one side of the base while consumer and quasi-luxury made up the other side of the base. Then the luxury tiers would be sitting above them. That's how I'd imagine it, anyway.
> 
> ...


Pressure OP thread. Glad you are in charge.

On Vacation and enjoying the posts


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> This "Rolex factor" is also one of the reasons that Rolex would never be just a luxury tier watch, even if you can somehow ignore an average Rolex sale being almost twice the price of an average Omega sale.


Given your criteria, I think you've got Rolex right. But if you get rid of the sale price, unless you're using name popularity and brand recognition as the main criteria, Rolex would certainly be at step down. I think their precious metal and jeweled watches are a very small portion of their sales, and wouldn't warrant being where you have them now.


----------



## OleBob (Dec 24, 2020)

Alas, my watches would fall into Every Day Luxury with Tag, Breitling, and Longines.


----------



## terrasur (Sep 29, 2017)

Earthjade said:


> Don't feel sorry for Longines. They are dominating, absolutely dominating the quasi-luxury tier in terms of sales and that is exactly where the Swatch Group wants them positioned - to catch the consumers that want a nice, quality watch from a strong brand but are not willing to pay more than about $3000. Swatch Group has Omega for those looking to spend more.
> 
> As for Credor, there's actually a case to knock them lower. Go to the Seiko boutique and you can see brand-new Credors for sale for just over $3000 Australian. I'm surprised more people haven't called out that Credor ranking,, actually.


To be clear, no pity for Longines here. You are right that they are killing their market segment. It's a weird place to be from an enthusiast perspective. They have some great pieces and movements (column wheel chrono for A$3500?) but they are swimming in a sea of very bland mass-market luxury designs.

Didn't realize that about Credor. Seiko is always hard to pin down. Watches from $3k to $350k...


----------



## bunnswatch (Mar 20, 2016)

🗑


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> As for Credor, there's actually a case to knock them lower. Go to the Seiko boutique and you can see brand-new Credors for sale for just over $3000 Australian. I'm surprised more people haven't called out that Credor ranking,, actually.


I was thinking that a little... but I think most people know them only from their very expensive watches (since they aren't marketed in many places), and think of them as sitting above Grand Seiko. But they do focus on precious metal watches, and are marketed as fairly high end. It would be interesting to know their average sale price.


----------



## wheelbuilder (Nov 25, 2016)

I think you did a good job with this OP. Thanks for the effort and continued commitment. 

Sent from my BBB100-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> I was thinking that a little... but I think most people know them only from their very expensive watches (since they aren't marketed in many places), and think of them as sitting above Grand Seiko. But they do focus on precious metal watches, and are marketed as fairly high end. It would be interesting to know their average sale price.


They are hard to pin down given their models range from about $3,000 all the way to $60,000. All the Japanese brands I had trouble placing, not because we can't reasonably guess the average sale price but because they are fine operating at such broad ranges that is not the "accepted orthodoxy" of the Swiss luxury brands, who like to compartmentalise their brands to target the market segments generally outlined in my graphic.

I find the Germans are a little like that, but in a different way - the Germans all congregate around quasi-luxury because their philosophy is to make quality watches at good prices. A German brand's entire range of tool and dress watches seems to revolve around this view. They're into the "craftsmanship value" side more so than the "luxury perception" side. Note that all the German brands higher than quasi-luxury are almost all ones owned by the Swiss, which I found interesting.

I think this is because in the end, luxury is _mostly _not about the quality of the watch but everything else you do to make your product more desirable. The Swiss have the marketing and cultivation of these intangibles down-pat but every other non-Swiss brand isn't necessarily playing the same game.


----------



## Steverino 417 (Feb 5, 2021)

Earthjade said:


> Probably quasi-luxury.
> 
> If I did it in a pyramid, then enthsiast would be one side of the base while consumer and quasi-luxury made up the other side of the base. Then the luxury tiers would be sitting above them. That's how I'd imagine it, anyway.
> 
> ...



Alpina - I was thinking about my Worldtimer when I wrote that, but maybe not representative of the brand overall.
Ball and Oris are in a similar situation in that they are independent, want to improve and both have in-house movements. There are also quite a few pieces in their collections where the price points are a level above.
Breitling - probably more my perception but I see them in the shop windows of high street jewellers here in the UK, the sort of shops that sell a range of brands which are in lower categories on your chart.
Panerai - see where you're coming from but they are very different from the other brands in the same category IMO. More dive/toolish in many ways rather than what I associate with luxury.
Rolex - they do the precious metal stuff, but the average MSRP of Rolex is just below $10k based on a link I saw on here recently so maybe precious pieces are probably relatively lower volume. I think Rolex is borderline between the two categories.
Muhle Glashutte - again I think borderline. Their tool watches for example I would put in the category above but they do have lower end parts of the range.


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

OP, I may have missed it and certainly not every brand in the world can squeeze into your tiers, but where would a brand like _Ressence_ fit in? Since your list is largely based on price would they be considered Ultra Luxury?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Chris Stark said:


> OP, I may have missed it and certainly not every brand in the world can squeeze into your tiers, but where would a brand like _Ressence_ fit in? Since your list is largely based on price would they be considered Ultra Luxury?


Isn't it closer in concept and philosophy to something like an ultra luxury Richard Mille or MB&F?
I'd say it's pretty clear these kind of elaborate "chrono-machines" go into ultra-luxury. What they don't have in a long brand history and heritage I think they more than make up for in ingenuity and craftsmanship. That kind of expensive wrist-art is a great example of what ultra luxury is (spending huge amounts of money on something unnecessary, because you can).

Price-wise, it's pretty clear cut as well.
The price requirement for ultra luxury is set at about $20,000 per average sale. That keeps Hublot in high-end luxury and allows Vacheron Constantin into squeak into ultra luxury. Ressence easily fulfils that $20K price requirement.


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

Earthjade said:


> Isn't it closer in concept and philosophy to something like an ultra luxury Richard Mille or MB&F?
> I'd say it's pretty clear these kind of elaborate "chrono-machines" go into ultra-luxury. What they don't have in a long brand history and heritage I think they more than make up for in ingenuity and craftsmanship. That kind of expensive wrist-art is a great example of what ultra luxury is (spending huge amounts of money on something unnecessary, because you can).
> 
> Price-wise, it's pretty clear cut as well.
> The price requirement for ultra luxury is set at about $20,000 per average sale. That keeps Hublot in high-end luxury and allows Vacheron Constantin into squeak into ultra luxury. Ressence easily fulfils that $20K price requirement.


I believe the Ressence starts out with an ETA 2824/2, which is probably an unfair statement because of what they do to it after that. There's nothing else like it out there I find them fascinating and the fast-forward time videos mesmerizing.









In-Depth: The Ressence Type 3-3


This is a $42,000 watch that looks electronic and has an ETA movement inside – ok, what's the deal?




www.hodinkee.com


----------



## Richy Horologie (Jan 14, 2021)

tricky92 said:


> I literally laughed out loud when I got to that...


I'm not getting this is this a joke or serious?

They make like $200 quartz watches 😕


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Richy Horologie said:


> I'm not getting this is this a joke or serious?
> 
> They make like $200 quartz watches 😕


Refer to post #106 in this thread for an explanation.


----------



## MarkS (Oct 9, 2009)

Surprised their are only 231, now 232 posts. The high end luxury and the ultra luxury categories simply have too many brands.
In my honest opinion a large number of the high end brands should be demoted to luxury, i.e, Bulgari, Zenith, GP, Harry Winston, Chopard, Panerai, Frabck Muller, Hublot,and Piaget for example should all be moved to luxury. Credor belongs in ultra luxury and Van Cleef does not belong in ultra luxury.

Regardless, it was a fine effort.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

MarkS said:


> Surprised their are only 231, now 232 posts. The high end luxury and the ultra luxury categories simply have too many brands.
> In my honest opinion a large number of the high end brands should be demoted to luxury, i.e, Bulgari, Zenith, GP, Harry Winston, Chopard, Panerai, Frabck Muller, Hublot,and Piaget for example should all be moved to luxury. Credor belongs in ultra luxury and Van Cleef does not belong in ultra luxury.
> 
> Regardless, it was a fine effort.


According to the 2020 sales data, an average Piaget sale is $20,258. If you think they belong in luxury instead of ultra luxury, you would need to explain why because then they are grouped in a tier with Omega, that sells on average for $5,626 - a massive $15,000 difference for brands sharing the same tier. How many watches a brand sells doesn't really figure in my calculations because this isn't about brand popularity more so than perception of brand prestige. It makes sense that more expensive watches will sell less because less people can afford to buy them, hence they are "luxurious" (but we also know that some brands sell less because they are also less appealing, no matter what price they are set at).

The reason most tier lists turn into a real ****-show is because most list creators will add in their opinion on how strong they think a brand is or what they think a brand has achieved or will consider the best watch a brand makes as what you judge them by. All these things start fights because they are subjective.

I am happy the typical response to my list seems to be _"All in all, I don't totally agree but it's OK."_
That's because the base placing of the brands into their tiers comes from price. It's objective data you can't argue with. But then I do add in some subjective judgement on a brand's strength but I try to be measured in that. For example, Cartier and TAG get a slight boost while Bell & Ross and Bremont take a penalty.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> It's objective data you can't argue with.


Well..... you could argue that it's potentially inaccurate, since it's based on estimates of market share, divided by estimates of # of watches sold, to get the average price. There are error bars on the numbers of unknown size, and there could be bad assumptions buried in the data in some cases. On the other hand, the data _could _be perfect, and it's the best we're going to get.

The average sale prices I'm most curious about - simply because they are surprising based on my very subjective "gut" - are Hublot and GO, for being high and low respectively.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> Well..... you could argue that it's potentially inaccurate, since it's based on estimates of market share, divided by estimates of # of watches sold, to get the average price. There are error bars on the numbers of unknown size, and there could be bad assumptions buried in the data in some cases. On the other hand, the data _could _be perfect, and it's the best we're going to get.
> 
> The average sale prices I'm most curious about - simply because they are surprising based on my very subjective "gut" - are Hublot and GO, for being high and low respectively.


It's the best we've got and are likely ever going to get. I think it works well (enough).
I do agree about GO, though. There's nothing in their range (men or women's) that is cheap enough to bring that average unit price to as low as it is. There's something funny going on in their implied retail value (69 mil CHF) and their units sold (12,000), as I assume that's how the average sale price is estimated.
Also, I question the Hamilton figure. What does Hamilton sell that could average out a unit sale to $1505? Is everyone buying Intramatic chronographs? It's possible these chronos could be very popular but still...

I think this is where we're hitting the limitations of the educated guesses the analysts are making and to be honest, I'm fine moving GO back to high-end luxury, all this considered.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> Do you know if it said if that data accounts for dealer discounts?


Attached is an early version of the actual Morgan Stanley report, from last October, with estimates for 2020. I can't seem to find the final 2020 report - it's probably not available publicly yet.

In any case, they don't talk much about their methodology. This version also doesn't have the average price table, so clearly not as complete as the final version either. Some interesting info/take on Breitling though.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> Attached is an early version of the actual Morgan Stanley report, from last October, with estimates for 2020. I can't seem to find the final 2020 report - it's probably not available publicly yet.


dbostedo, in your opinion:

1) What brands on the tier list would you move around? 
2) Any fairly well-known brand you can think of that has been missed?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> 1) What brands on the tier list would you move around?


Trying to stick to your methodology, I don't know that I'd move any. Going more by perception or marketing of the brand, I'd move Rolex and Zenith down, and GO up. And would consider bumping Mido and Alpina up. And Dior and Chanel are hard to classify - and I don't know what they mostly sell and what people associate them with. I associate them with their expensive in-house watches; But I guess if the numbers are right, those aren't most of their sales. And maybe add Louis Vuitton or Ralph Lauren?



Earthjade said:


> 2) Any fairly well-known brand you can think of that has been missed?


How about MVMT? 

There are a few other smaller brands that are kind of mainstream or well known, that could possibly be added to either the Luxury, High-end, or Ultra categories - Ressence was already mentioned, Ochs and Junior would be interesting to add, Czapek, Hentschel, Armin Strom, Laurent Ferrier, Pamigiani, Benzinger, etc.

Otherwise it's a pretty complete list unless you want to add micros or newcomers, like Ming or Anordain or Monta or the like.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Yeah... stats are a funny thing (kinda my thing)! Averages are a dangerous thing by themselves when only 1, 2 or 3 factors are taken into consideration. Look at the Seiko's mentioned, from cheap to Eichi... so the "average" Seiko sells for ~$15000!

... well, you get the general idea. I own, like 4 Seiko's..., I must be rich!!


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

Dior and Ralph Lauren in Luxury but Gucci in Quasi Luxury? Dont they all make similar fashion watches?

i would also consider the watchmaking of Hermes, Chanel and LV to be at par with one another.

Same with Bulgari and Cartier.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Pongster said:


> Dior and Ralph Lauren in Luxury but Gucci in Quasi Luxury? Dont they all make similar fashion watches?
> 
> i would also consider the watchmaking of Hermes, Chanel and LV to be at par with one another.
> 
> Same with Bulgari and Cartier.


The problem with Ralph Lauren is that they have watches from about $2,000 up to $15K and $20K.
Where do you place a brand that gets Piaget to make an ultra-thin model for you? It kind of grates on me to see "Ralph Lauren" in the same category as Omega and Zenith, but they aren't just rebranding cheap Chinese quartz watches.


I hate ranking these fashion brands.
LV is at luxury based mainly on pricing of Tambour range. Chanel's pricing for their J12 is in luxury as well at around 6K.
Hermes are a little lower and happy to use quartz
If Bulgari is at Cartier's level, which I don't disagree with, then that means Bulgari is down to luxury rather than Cartier going up to high-end luxury. The reason is that the cost of entry for a high-end luxury watch isn't set around $2-3K, which it is for Cartier.


----------



## MarkS (Oct 9, 2009)

Earthjade said:


> According to the 2020 sales data, an average Piaget sale is $20,258. If you think they belong in luxury instead of ultra luxury, you would need to explain why because then they are grouped in a tier with Omega, that sells on average for $5,626 - a massive $15,000 difference for brands sharing the same tier. How many watches a brand sells doesn't really figure in my calculations because this isn't about brand popularity more so than perception of brand prestige. It makes sense that more expensive watches will sell less because less people can afford to buy them, hence they are "luxurious" (but we also know that some brands sell less because they are also less appealing, no matter what price they are set at).
> 
> The reason most tier lists turn into a real ****-show is because most list creators will add in their opinion on how strong they think a brand is or what they think a brand has achieved or will consider the best watch a brand makes as what you judge them by. All these things start fights because they are subjective.
> 
> ...


Yes, I definitely added my opinion regarding the quality, history and character of the brand. As you mentioned, Piaget average sells price is over 20k, but, is this because of the watch itself or the jewelry? Many Piagets have solid gold bracelets and diamonds. I was thinking of defining the brand by just the watch, and I don't see Piaget on the same tier as Patek Philippe. But, if you created the tiers on price alone... I understand.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

MarkS said:


> Yes, I definitely added my opinion regarding the quality, history and character of the brand. As you mentioned, Piaget average sells price is over 20k, but, is this because of the watch itself or the jewelry? Many Piagets have solid gold bracelets and diamonds. I was thinking of defining the brand by just the watch, and I don't see Piaget on the same tier as Patek Philippe. But, if you created the tiers on price alone... I understand.


In my opinion, ignoring the way this was originally put together and the jewelry aspects, and emphasizing quality, history, and character, Piaget can't be below "High-end Luxury".


----------



## 1Rob (Dec 31, 2020)

great reference. I’m sure I will check it from time to time. thanks for putting this together.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Was going to buy a watch the other day, saw it wasn't on the list... didn't get it!

(Partially true!)


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> Was going to buy a watch the other day, saw it wasn't on the list... didn't get it!
> 
> (Partially true!)


What was it? There are several brands I really like that I don't think will ever be on the list:


Auricoste
Dodane 1857
Z.R.C.
Kentex
Come to mind straight away.
The website watch-rankings.com ranks 676 watch brands, which I could never do.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> The website watch-rankings.com


Holy cow... we no longer need any rankings or tiers threads. It's all been done already! I guess we can close this thread and a few others. 

(But seriously... how did I not know about that site, and how did it not get mentioned until now?)


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> Holy cow... we no longer need any rankings or tiers threads. It's all been done already! I guess we can close this thread and a few others.
> 
> (But seriously... how did I not know about that site, and how did it not get mentioned until now?)


I like their thoroughness but I don't like how they've made their categories and assigned some of their rankings.
Mathey-Tissot is not an entry-level luxury watch to me!


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

Earthjade said:


> What was it? ...


A FAVRE-LEUBA. They have made a comeback, in a big way with some really unique stuff! Including an unusual way to display the time, etc.



(This is reading 10:10 and the small center disk is the seconds indicator. Not really a second hand per se, but an indicator to tell the wearer, the watch is running. One of the dive watch requirements)

I'm probably talking myself into it right now!

I'd probably place it in the Luxury tier.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> Mathey-Tissot is not an entry-level luxury watch to me!


Why not? I don't know much about them, but seems about right to me.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

I Like em BIG ! ! said:


> A FAVRE-LEUBA. They have made a comeback, in a big way with some really unique stuff! Including an unusual way to display the time, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My first gut instinct is that they are a quasi-luxury watch. Interesting tool watches with quality builds and a small, everyday watch line.
This is like many of the German brands in quasi-luxury tier.



dbostedo said:


> Why not? I don't know much about them, but seems about right to me.


You can buy a quartz model from them for about $200. That's consumer.
Luxury is about making things desirable. Making something desirable means making it seem hard to get. 
Easiest way you can do that is by sending a price signal and placing exclusivity hurdles. Expensive = luxurious.
Any brand you can buy into for $200 is not an entry level luxury brand, even if they have more expensive offerings (but I think their "best" model is like $1500 - which is quasi-luxury at most).


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> (but I think their "best" model is like $1500 - which is quasi-luxury at most).


Well we're talking about watch-rankings now, so there isn't a quasi-luxury category.  So moving them down would just put them in "watches", which I could see I guess.

One thing I just noticed is watch-rankings has Gorilla in "watches". That seems wrong.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! ! (Feb 10, 2012)

DP


----------



## RynoRex82 (Nov 8, 2020)

I feel Farer are a little hard done by here. Price, design, quality, I put them on par with Christopher Ward.

Any reason why Farer wouldn’t be considered in the same league as CW?

I don’t mean Farer should be in the same bracket as Sinn or Longines, more so CW should probably be back with Farer.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

RynoRex82 said:


> I feel Farer are a little hard done by here. Price, design, quality, I put them on par with Christopher Ward.
> Any reason why Farer wouldn't be considered in the same league as CW?
> I don't mean Farer should be in the same bracket as Sinn or Longines, more so CW should probably be back with Farer.


I'm happy with Farer and CW being in the tiers they are.
Farer is very much aiming at enthusiasts with their style and aesthetic of 1950s Britain and their colourful designs. They are about "adventure" more than "luxury" and are kind of like an artistic version of Seiko Prospex, but with more reliable Swiss movements. Also, being in enthusiast tier doesn't necessarily mean cheap, as Doxa is in there as well with watches that cost up to an entry level luxury watch.

CW on the other hand has watches priced similarly to Farer, but they have a broader range that straddles sports watches as well as dressier watches. They're more like a mail-order Longines so you can see how they are aspiring to be that kind of "affordable luxury" style of watch that most definitely fits into the Quasi-Luxury category, like Monta. This isn't an exact science, but there is some reasoning as to why watch brands are in the categories they are in, and it's not always about price but also considers watch models and "brand philosophy".


----------



## Bugra (Mar 2, 2014)

On another note what actually happened to Sevenfriday? 

I hated how it was pushed on social media back then, them days you didn't know who was an influencer and who wasn't...


----------



## WatchBorder (Apr 25, 2016)

Earthjade said:


> I agree that TAG is tricky and there is a good argument for them being in quasi-luxury instead because their cost of entry is relatively low for their cheaper models. I think the main reason they are in entry-level instead is the Heuer factor - it brings them up. Everyone would agree that a Monaco or Autavia are at the very least an entry-level luxury watches while an Aquaracer is probably a quasi-luxury watch. TAG is tricky, but I'm OK putting them where they are.


Not so sure about this argument...is Ford a luxury brand because they make the Mustang ? No, they are still mainstream.


----------



## Bucks (Mar 7, 2016)

I know it's listing brands but if it listed actual pieces the Seiko skx 007 would be on top based on current crazy prices, being worth at least forty seamasters.


----------



## SirHorse (Dec 10, 2014)

Interesting discussion and breakdown of brands. I now need to get a window sticker for my caddy of the Vincero logo peeing on a Patek logo.


----------



## BerutoSenpai (Sep 7, 2016)

@Earthjade @dbostedo More doesn't mean better. I could probably give 20 watch brands that are improperly placed at watch-rankings. And that is all based on their criteria not us speculators.

One thing that is flawed in that site is they rely generaly on quantity at Chrono24 and eBay. Example if Rolex has 100 listings and 80 of them are Cellini's then he would put them at 4 stars which is Trinity level/ALS etc. and even the trinity is not 5 stars; or if Rolex has 80 counterfeits out of the 100 priced at 1k below then Rolex would be alongside Oris and Longines. Another example to make myself clearer, if Omega had 5 listings and 3 of them were the special edition tourbillons then Omega would probably be placed in 5 stars ?

A few months ago I was convincing the owner to put Revue Thommen back at 2 stars but refused because Revue Thommen has around 300 listings that time and more than half were priced below $1500 (which is the 2 stars category). With that logic, Alpina should be down a star also because less than half are below their price range. Fortis is also a brand plagued by grey-market listings but is fortunate enough to have more than half of the listings priced at $1500 ?. So it seemed to me that he just takes a lazy approach by quantifying the listings without even considering grey market, replicas and counterfeits (yes he counts them also instead of disregarding them)?

Finally, some watches are placed where they are due to heritage, others due to pricing. It seems if you have the pricing, heritage and pedigree but produce a lot of watches then you go 4, otherwise go 5. Trinity, A.L.S are the victims of this logic.

tl:dr The site is ultra subjective with a few hints of biases here and there.


----------



## grizzly83 (Mar 11, 2021)

I’ve seen these charts around before and I’m always intrigued by the inclusion of LV, Ralph Lauren, and Hermès. 
Having never laid hands on any watches from these brands, I try not to write them off entirely. But I have a hard time seeing how watches from fashion brands even get included, let alone at the levels they are listed here.
Am I way off base? Am I missing something?


----------



## BerutoSenpai (Sep 7, 2016)

grizzly83 said:


> I've seen these charts around before and I'm always intrigued by the inclusion of LV, Ralph Lauren, and Hermès.
> Having never laid hands on any watches from these brands, I try not to write them off entirely. But I have a hard time seeing how watches from fashion brands even get included, let alone at the levels they are listed here.
> Am I way off base? Am I missing something?


They make nice pieces some are even high end. IMO if you leave them off, then you should do the same with Cartier and Bvlgari.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

grizzly83 said:


> I've seen these charts around before and I'm always intrigued by the inclusion of LV, Ralph Lauren, and Hermès.
> Having never laid hands on any watches from these brands, I try not to write them off entirely. But I have a hard time seeing how watches from fashion brands even get included, let alone at the levels they are listed here.
> Am I way off base? Am I missing something?


Kind of.
It's not the first instinct of a WIS to consider these fashion brands to be watch brands, but they are legitimate. As mentioned by @BerutoSenpai, Bvlgari and Cartier are part of this eco-system. Take for example, the summary below of Louis Vuitton watches, with the bolded type added by me to emphasise the point:

*Louis Vuitton Watches Unveiled*

When Louis Vuitton management made the decision to begin creating watches, it had the financial backing of the LVMH Group to do it right. *Rather than license its name, Louis Vuitton opted to make its own timepieces. The watch industry in Switzerland had always been a carriage trade, with specialty suppliers selling to big companies. This made it easy for Louis Vuitton to source top-quality movements and parts in the beginning of its journey.*

The first Louis Vuitton watch collection made its debut after two years of research and development. The Tambour was unveiled to the world in 2002. The round Tambour had a large dial opening to mime a drum. It was an immediate hit with Louis Vuitton lovers and remains an iconic line for the brand even today. In 2005, Louis Vuitton released the cushion-cornered square Speedy, which has also become a pillar collection. Other important lines included the America's Cup Regatta watches, the Louis Vuitton Cup watches and a host of others.

The brand wowed the world in 2010 with its creative Tambour Spin Time watch. A jump-hour timepiece, the Spin Time offered wearers a different way to read the time and was colorful and singular looking all at once. *In 2011, Louis Vuitton took an important step toward becoming vertically integrated in its production capabilities. It purchased La Fabrique du Temps, a top Swiss manufacturer of fine movements. In 2012, Louis Vuitton acquired Le'man Cadran, famed dial maker. In 2013, the brand unveiled its own watchmaking factory in Meyrin (Geneva).*

It was in 2016 that Louis Vuitton unveiled its Voyager collection of watches. It is in this line, as well as in the Tambour, that the brand predominantly houses its high complications. Those *complications include tourbillons, mystery watches and minute repeaters*. In addition to offering bold style and mechanical prowess, Louis Vuitton recognizes today's consumers also want smart watches. It has complied nicely since 2017 with its collection of connected watches with a range of software upgrades.









Louis Vuitton Watchmaking: Luxury Reigns Supreme -


Discover Louis Vuitton's watches and watchmaking wing with a detailed overview of the brand's history and current collection thanks to our guide.




bespokeunit.com


----------



## grizzly83 (Mar 11, 2021)

Earthjade said:


> Kind of.
> It's not the first instinct of a WIS to consider these fashion brands to be watch brands, but they are legitimate. As mentioned by @BerutoSenpai, Bvlgari and Cartier are part of this eco-system. Take for example, the summary below of Louis Vuitton watches, with the bolded type added by me to emphasise the point:
> 
> *Louis Vuitton Watches Unveiled*
> ...


Bold move. Seems like they are trying to do it right. 
mid be curious to know why thier sales look like and what target demographic they are chasing.


----------



## jupe (Apr 21, 2021)

Personally don't think Tudor belongs in the same group as Nomos and Tag, but that's just my personal opinion.


----------



## Bezelworld (Apr 18, 2021)

grizzly83 said:


> I've seen these charts around before and I'm always intrigued by the inclusion of LV, Ralph Lauren, and Hermès.
> Having never laid hands on any watches from these brands, I try not to write them off entirely. But I have a hard time seeing how watches from fashion brands even get included, let alone at the levels they are listed here.
> Am I way off base? Am I missing something?


As noted by @Earthjade noted, they actually have a bigger investment in horology than a lot of "real" watchmakers who don't own their own factories or make their own movements. I just want to add that Hermes is doing the same thing: They have purchased a Swiss watchmaking company (Joseph Erard Holding) and I believe hold stake in another one in order to have access to fully customizable movements.

While I can't say the same for Ralph Lauren, I don't know, but it definitely doesn't make their watches shoddy by default. It's totally company-dependent how much they invest in a certain area and random fashion companies priorities horology and others don't.



grizzly83 said:


> Bold move. Seems like they are trying to do it right.
> mid be curious to know why thier sales look like and what target demographic they are chasing.


This "target audience" question is their issue: They target the current LV/Hermes customer that's already shopping there. Louis Vuitton is known for not using AD's and selling everything through their own boutiques, same with Hermes. So to get a LV watch you have to, you guessed it, buy it from an LV boutique. And from who? Some SA that's used to selling scarves all day? And most boutiques don't even have them? And to get the really cool pieces you have to be a repeat client who buys a bunch of expensive non-watch related items? It's all kind of weird, and as a result they just get ignored by the watch world. Perhaps to their detriment.

I think if LV & Hermes watches were carried in your local multi-brand watch retailer we might be forced to take a deeper look at them.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

I'm seriously thinking if Panerai should be knocked down to luxury from high-end luxury.
Brand power has weakened over the past decade and they can be had for relatively low prices on the used market, despite MSRP.

What do others think?


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

Bezelworld said:


> As noted by @Earthjade noted, they actually have a bigger investment in horology than a lot of "real" watchmakers who don't own their own factories or make their own movements. I just want to add that Hermes is doing the same thing: They have purchased a Swiss watchmaking company (Joseph Erard Holding) and I believe hold stake in another one in order to have access to fully customizable movements.
> 
> While I can't say the same for Ralph Lauren, I don't know, but it definitely doesn't make their watches shoddy by default. It's totally company-dependent how much they invest in a certain area and random fashion companies priorities horology and others don't.
> 
> ...


in Hermes boutiques i have been to, if you buy any of their haute horologie watches, your wife will automatically get an allocation for a birkin/kelly.

re LV, am curious if there is any collaboration with Zenith and/or TAG. And did they pursue the Tiffany acquisition?


----------



## MHH (Jan 25, 2021)

Pongster said:


> in Hermes boutiques i have been to, if you buy any of their haute horologie watches, your wife will automatically get an allocation for a birkin/kelly.


Is this a guarantee and how would you approach this topic with the boutique?

I really do like the Slim d'Hermes line (that movement deserves more praise!) and my fiancée is dreaming of buying a birkin...it would be a nice touch to push me towards the Slim vs. a comparable other brand.


----------



## Ed.YANG (Jun 8, 2011)

Earthjade said:


> I'm happy with Farer and CW being in the tiers they are.
> Farer is very much aiming at enthusiasts with their style and aesthetic of 1950s Britain and their colourful designs. They are about "adventure" more than "luxury" and are kind of like an artistic version of Seiko Prospex, but with more reliable Swiss movements. Also, being in enthusiast tier doesn't necessarily mean cheap, as Doxa is in there as well with watches that cost up to an entry level luxury watch......


Just a personal kind of view... Though both Ward and Farer originates from England...
Christopher Ward is more established and well deserved to be an "older" brother than Farer which comes in late where i quote,


> ...Our ambition is simple: to make great watches at fair prices. Born from a love of vintage watches and a frustration at an overpriced market - in 2015, Farer set out to do things differently by creating a new watch company for the modern era...


numbers of years younger and they need sometime to get the company onto it's stable stand, and perhaps develop a In-House movement like what ChristopherWard and Bremont managed to achieve to further strengthen their brand status.

However, that would probably going to cost them another 5 or 7yrs to reach with a "healthy" portfolio of products, designs and innovations...


----------



## LAWatchGuy20 (Aug 12, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...


Nice. Good effort for sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ProjectQuattro (Jun 2, 2016)

This is awesome.

My only thought: might it be worth breaking out G-shock separately from Casio? Casio is definitely a consumer brand you can find at drug stores, but G-shocks are well-respected by pretty much all enthusiasts. I'd have one if only they were slightly smaller.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Computantis (Feb 18, 2021)

Earthjade said:


> I'm comfortable with where they are on the list in terms of their watches.
> The ones I felt were borderline were:
> 
> 
> ...


Agree with your Blancpain comment.


----------



## Computantis (Feb 18, 2021)

Could you explain the reasoning for titling the "enthusiast" brands? I feel like enthusiast is way too subjective.


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

MHH said:


> Is this a guarantee and how would you approach this topic with the boutique?
> 
> I really do like the Slim d'Hermes line (that movement deserves more praise!) and my fiancée is dreaming of buying a birkin...it would be a nice touch to push me towards the Slim vs. a comparable other brand.


there's an art to it. But pretty much guaranteed. You dont go out blurting it out.

what is not guaranteed is the exact birkin your fiancee may want. What leather and color and metal she looking at?


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

Pongster said:


> there's an art to it. But pretty much guaranteed. You dont go out blurting it out.
> 
> what is not guaranteed is the exact birkin your fiancee may want. What leather and color and metal she looking at?


how much is a slim d hermes? Is it one of their haute horologie pieces?

but as i said there is in art. I just buy shirts and shoes and my wife gets a birkin or a kelly. But not always what she wants. Sometimes she gets lucky though.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Computantis said:


> Could you explain the reasoning for titling the "enthusiast" brands? I feel like enthusiast is way too subjective.


Agreed that term is subjective... but the names of the groups don't matter for which watches wind up in them really. The group names are from the original graphic this is based on, linked in the first post. But this list from @Earthjade is primarily grouped by average sale price, so it's more about grouping similarly sale-priced watches then making some adjustments at the borderline cases, and not about any particular category/term/definition.


----------



## ChuckSchilling (Dec 2, 2019)

I think the idea that there is some rigid "hierarchy" is one of the biggest problems In this hobby. So many of my fellow hobbyists seem ultra-fascinated by establishing a pecking order and putting manufacturers of watches they own at or near the top of the pecking order, and putting the makers of watches they disdain/scorn below. Such a list might be slightly useful for someone new to the hobby and who doesn't know a lot about different brands, but has little to no value to knowledgeable folk other than to stroke their ego.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ChuckSchilling said:


> I think the idea that there is some rigid "hierarchy" is one of the biggest problems In this hobby. So many of my fellow hobbyists seem ultra-fascinated by establishing a pecking order and putting manufacturers of watches they own at or near the top of the pecking order, and putting the makers of watches they disdain/scorn below. Such a list might be slightly useful for someone new to the hobby and who doesn't know a lot about different brands, but has little to no value to knowledgeable folk other than to stroke their ego.


But his isn't that kind of list. It's a lot more objective than that.


----------



## ChuckSchilling (Dec 2, 2019)

dbostedo said:


> But his isn't that kind of list. It's a lot more objective than that.


Really? When you say "objective" what are you referring to? Because all of this is entirely subjective and there are any number of watchmakers on this list with broad catalogs that span many different categorizations, regardless of how you "objectively" define them.


----------



## MHH (Jan 25, 2021)

Pongster said:


> how much is a slim d hermes? Is it one of their haute horologie pieces?
> 
> but as i said there is in art. I just buy shirts and shoes and my wife gets a birkin or a kelly. But not always what she wants. Sometimes she gets lucky though.


The slim is 7000 USD retail. So this is maybe pushing the definition of haute horologie, but it's a lovely dress watch that I wouldn't mind owning.

Fiancee is looking for a Kelly (I think 25 is her favorite size), neutral color (or light pink), silver hardware, sellier stitching and a harder leather (maybe epsom). We're in the Bay Area and there are a lot of big spenders here so I'd be hesitant to go out and spend $7700 on a slim instead of a JLC if I can't more or less guarantee my fiancee gets something


----------



## Baka1969 (Dec 29, 2017)

I'd be curious to see where Concord would be by many here. They have a variety of products. From not interesting to pretty interesting. Even an El Primero based chrono of recent past.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

ChuckSchilling said:


> Really? When you say "objective" what are you referring to? Because all of this is entirely subjective and there are any number of watchmakers on this list with broad catalogs that span many different categorizations, regardless of how you "objectively" define them.


As I said above (post 278), if you read the whole thread, you'll see that the groupings are largely based on published data regarding the actual average sale prices of each brand. That's the objective part. So no, it's not entirely subjective, beyond some adjustments that were made for borderline cases.

So if a brand typically sells $1000 watches, but occassionally make a $100K minute repeater, it's going to land in the appropriate group for $1000 average sale price. Or _maybe_ get bumped up or down a group if @Earthjade thought there was justification. Those justifications are in the first post.


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

MHH said:


> The slim is 7000 USD retail. So this is maybe pushing the definition of haute horologie, but it's a lovely dress watch that I wouldn't mind owning.
> 
> Fiancee is looking for a Kelly (I think 25 is her favorite size), neutral color (or light pink), silver hardware, sellier stitching and a harder leather (maybe epsom). We're in the Bay Area and there are a lot of big spenders here so I'd be hesitant to go out and spend $7700 on a slim instead of a JLC if I can't more or less guarantee my fiancee gets something


from the little that i know, the 25s (for both B and K) are in demand. Dont know why. You can hardly put anything inside.

yup. The slim might or might not work. You may have to add more i think. A rule of thumb is buying as much as the value of the bag you want. Sometimes you dont have to. The SA gauges whether you are a bonafide consumer or a reseller (like the stainless steel watch games).

the watch i was looking at then was the time suspending model. Around USD20K or so if am not mistaken. When i tried it on, the SA told me that if i got it, she can easily get an allocation for my wife.


----------



## BerutoSenpai (Sep 7, 2016)

Well 


ChuckSchilling said:


> Really? When you say "objective" what are you referring to? Because all of this is entirely subjective and there are any number of watchmakers on this list with broad catalogs that span many different categorizations, regardless of how you "objectively" define them.


well my signature might be of help. But for the same sentiment I might just remove it.


----------



## BerutoSenpai (Sep 7, 2016)

dbostedo said:


> As I said above (post 278), if you read the whole thread, you'll see that the groupings are largely based on published data regarding the actual average sale prices of each brand. That's the objective part. So no, it's not entirely subjective, beyond some adjustments that were made for borderline cases.
> 
> So if a brand typically sells $1000 watches, but occassionally make a $100K minute repeater, it's going to land in the appropriate group for $1000 average sale price. Or _maybe_ get bumped up or down a group if @Earthjade thought there was justification. Those justifications are in the first post.


I have also the same approach regarding brands with a wide range of prices. Example is Nivrel which has below $1k quartz models and some piece unique $20k models.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

I'll repeat what I said a while ago:
Seriously considering moving Panerai into luxury from high luxury.

Average sale price fits, but I think they suffer a penalty in their brand reputation. There is a precedent for it on my list - Bell & Ross and Bremont could be in luxury according to average sale price. But I gave them a penalty due to the weakness of their brand strength. No one has really had a problem with where I placed those two brands.


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

Earthjade said:


> I'll repeat what I said a while ago:
> Seriously considering moving Panerai into luxury from high luxury.
> 
> Average sale price fits, but I think they suffer a penalty in their brand reputation. There is a precedent for it on my list - Bell & Ross and Bremont could be in luxury according to average sale price. But I gave them a penalty due to the weakness of their brand strength. No one has really had a problem with where I placed those two brands.


go for it


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

OK, I moved Panerai down to Luxury from High End Luxury. According to the sales figures, an average Panerai sale is comparable to an average JLC sale in terms of price, but here were my reasons for the demotion:

Resale value takes a big hit (which is indicative of the next point)
Brand strength has weakened in recent years 
This is one of those cases where the brand gets a modifier that moves it a tier not based solely on average unit price. As I mentioned before, Bell & Ross, Bremont and Zenith take a penalty hit on such modifiers while Rolex receives a bonus modifier due to their incredible brand strength and recognition. By the same token, JLC also receives a bit of a positive modifier for their reputation as "The watchmaker's watchmaker".


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> OK, I moved Panerai down to Luxury from High End Luxury. According to the sales figures, an average Panerai sale is comparable to an average JLC sale in terms of price, but here were my reasons for the demotion:
> 
> Resale value takes a big hit (which is indicative of the next point)
> Brand strength has weakened in recent years
> This is one of those cases where the brand gets a modifier that moves it a tier not based solely on average unit price. As I mentioned before, Bell & Ross, Bremont and Zenith take a penalty hit on such modifiers while Rolex receives a bonus modifier due to their incredible brand strength and recognition. By the same token, JLC also receives a bit of a positive modifier for their reputation as "The watchmaker's watchmaker".


All very good points. Concur with your list mate.


----------



## Gerrit-Jan (Jun 1, 2021)

I like this tier-list because it shows me the brands that I should never have to think or about or consider buying, and by that I mean the brands that fall under Ultra Luxury.

edit: but I don't understand why Calvin Klein is on this list but Tommy Hilfiger isn't?


----------



## DoraTheExplorerII (Dec 12, 2014)

Too many salty people in here whose favourite brands were not elevated and the ones they hate were not demoted.


----------



## Pongster (Jan 7, 2017)

What? Vincero was a joke?


----------



## alex_b (Jul 16, 2013)

Pongster said:


> from the little that i know, the 25s (for both B and K) are in demand. Dont know why. You can hardly put anything inside.


Say us, the people spending tens of thousands of dollars on watches. Something about glass houses and stones springs to mind


----------



## malioil (May 7, 2011)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...


Great list, a lot of effort obviously went into this.


----------



## Baka1969 (Dec 29, 2017)

I still never figured out where Concord would fit.


----------



## EyeDoubleYouSee (Aug 22, 2020)

Putting DW and MVMT in the same category as Timex is sus.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Rolex needs to go down one tier. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

RotorSelfWinding said:


> Putting DW and MVMT in the same category as Timex is sus.


Not really.
There are lots of great brands in consumer - it's no blight on their name (just who they target).



GrouchoM said:


> Rolex needs to go down one tier.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


No. We've been through this.
An average Rolex sale is almost twice that of an average Omega or IWC sale and comparable with JLC. That is in and of itself enough to place them where they are by an objective monetary measure.
Rolex also gets a positive modifier for their industry-dominating brand value, recognition, crazy resale values and desirability.


----------



## EyeDoubleYouSee (Aug 22, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> Not really.
> There are lots of great brands in consumer - it's no blight on their name (just who they target).


Timex - Great brand
MVMT, DW - Hot garbage


----------



## Jean1888 (Jul 14, 2020)

Rolex should be knocked down a level which would probably upset a lot of people here. They are using a shady scarcity marketing tactic to fuel an illusion of demand which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The mass demand is met with Tudors that are readily available. Rolex is a luxury fashion watch.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Jean1888 said:


> Rolex should be knocked down a level which would probably upset a lot of people here. They are using a shady scarcity marketing tactic to fuel an illusion of demand which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The mass demand is met with Tudors that are readily available. Rolex is a luxury fashion watch.


But the average actual sale price of a Rolex is ~$9,800 (per the Morgan Stanley estimates based on market share contained in this article: Top 50 Swiss Watch Brands of 2020 Market Share - Editorial).

That's more than the estimates for Panerai, GO, JLC, UN, and much more than Omega, Breitling, etc. As this list is largely based on that data, Rolex is already where it belongs; The scarcity you speak of is part of the placement (although the data used doesn't include secondary market prices).


----------



## J__D (Feb 15, 2021)

dbostedo said:


> But the average actual sale price of a Rolex is ~$9,800 (per the Morgan Stanley estimates based on market share contained in this article: Top 50 Swiss Watch Brands of 2020 Market Share - Editorial).
> 
> That's more than the estimates for Panerai, GO, JLC, UN, and much more than Omega, Breitling, etc. As this list is largely based on that data, Rolex is already where it belongs; The scarcity you speak of is part of the placement (although the data used doesn't include secondary market prices).


On that point Zenith should have stayed where it was originally, average sale price of UN and GO, both lower than Zenith, so why was Zenith moved lower? Arguably resale price for all are similar all go down, and brand prescription (outside of the US where Zenith has struggled due to the TV branding) is all broadly similar


----------



## BerutoSenpai (Sep 7, 2016)

Well it’s starting to cause some ruckus now. Best of luck to everyone 😅.


----------



## jimiwilli (Mar 6, 2013)

Very good! I agree with 95% of this, which is rare for one of these list. I would make the argument that JLC should be in Ultra-luxury, particularly if Breguet is there. JLC average unit piece, everything in-house, and arguably the best movement manufacturer on the planet.


----------



## mediasapiens (Jul 18, 2019)

All jewelry brands belong to the same cat. All fashion brands should belong to the same as well. Breguet is definitely not Ultra anything, also AP and VC do not belong to the top category, in my opinion.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

mediasapiens said:


> All jewelry brands belong to the same cat. All fashion brands should belong to the same as well.


So you'd prefer to categorize the companies by what they make other than watches, rather than categorize them by the watches they make?


----------



## mediasapiens (Jul 18, 2019)

dbostedo said:


> So you'd prefer to categorize the companies by what they make other than watches, rather than categorize them by the watches they make?


There is a strong correlation between Company customer profile and what they offer to their clientele. Dior would not offer perpetual calendars would it? To put Hermes below Dior is absurd, watches or other products there is no comparison, at least put them all together if you are clueless. Tiffany is below Chopard is another sign of a person with zero knowledge of either. So the least one can do is categorize them by their business profile.
Then one can have a sensible watch hierarchy within the category:
Cartier,
Tiffany, Chopard.
Bucherer, Graf,
Gubelin
etc


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Hi All,

Reviving this topic with some extra watch brands we talk about occasionally on these boards:

Czapek, Armin Strom, Ming, Graham, anOrdain, Kurono, Minase, Habring, ZRC, Formex, Le Jour and Aristo.


----------



## perfect timing (12 mo ago)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...



Great list


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

Zenith should not have been bumped down.


----------



## daveswordfish (Aug 17, 2010)

Dietly said:


> I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


Owning all three, 100% yes. You could make a horological argument that Breitling isn’t on par with Omega, but from a luxury/segment perspective, absolutely .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Terry M. (Apr 15, 2007)

Ahhhhh….. here’s this thread again. Ranking watch brands. I love these threads.


----------



## sdiver68 (Aug 6, 2010)

Grand Seiko's new 9SA5 movement is spectacular enough to warrant a bump for the brand on its own merits.

I don't think many have paid attention to what it is.


----------



## paflyfisher (8 mo ago)

I think Sinn should be up one notch. They are superior to the rest of their ranking here, especially head to head in the tool watch category, fortis for example is far less of a brand.


----------



## Joesbalt (12 mo ago)

I didn't even know Ralph Lauren had watches anyone would even consider "luxury"


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...


LOL

Ralph Lauren?
Dior?
Louis Vitton?

sitting next to omega, Cartier and Breitling?

I assume this was done as a joke?
Fashion brands sitting next to some of the long-standing brands in horology?

chrono24 only has one Ralph Lauren watch selling for 5 figures (and it’s going for $10k). It’s not even in the same book as omega and breitling and Cartier, never mind the same chapter.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Joesbalt said:


> I didn't even know Ralph Lauren had watches anyone would even consider "luxury"


i chuckled at that as well

nobody considers Ralph Lauren luxury.
At least Montblanc put some effort into horology. Ralph Lauren does not belong anywhere near their ranking.


----------



## Joesbalt (12 mo ago)

BallBearings said:


> i chuckled at that as well
> 
> nobody considers Ralph Lauren luxury.
> At least Montblanc put some effort into horology. Ralph Lauren does not belong anywhere near their ranking.




Unless something I'm unaware of ... 🤷

I think I've seen them in Macy's for 1-200$ but maybe I'm just imagining that


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

We doing this again?
Discussion about "fashion brands" is all in this topic. Nothing just raised hasn't already been raised (and discussed and addressed).


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Dietly said:


> I know this is a joke but I'm curious if most people actually see Breitling as being on the same "tier" as Omega. I don't know why but I've always had kind of a so-so opinion of them, they definitely don't seem nearly as prestigious or popular as Omega or Rolex.


i have always considered breitling to be at the same level as omega, which I consider to be a less well marketed and less well respected and watered down class from rolex. But all three well made mass produced pieces with great tradition and quality. Omega and breitling just don’t have the pinache as Rolex, and the sheer volume/number of models and availability at lower price points on the secondary market knock them down a peg.

I actually have always considered breitling a touch above omega if I had to chose between the two (althoughI consider them very similar, so that advantage would be slight).


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Joesbalt said:


> Unless something I'm unaware of ... 🤷
> 
> I think I've seen them in Macy's for 1-200$ but maybe I'm just imagining that


I went on chrono24 and Ralph Lauren polo watches do not seem to be well regarded on the secondary market. Definitely nothing high end. Probably a it overpriced even at a grand or two due to their brand recognition.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> Ralph Lauren?
> Dior?
> Louis Vitton?





BallBearings said:


> nobody considers Ralph Lauren luxury.





Joesbalt said:


> Unless something I'm unaware of ... 🤷
> 
> I think I've seen them in Macy's for 1-200$ but maybe I'm just imagining that





BallBearings said:


> I went on chrono24 and Ralph Lauren polo watches do not seem to be well regarded on the secondary market. Definitely nothing high end. Probably a it overpriced even at a grand or two due to their brand recognition.


I addressed this in another thread. RL absolutely makes high end watches and lots of other excellent ones... so I'll just link to that post:









In a just world, Longines would be the equivalent of...


You could say the same for Hamilton... one of the great, if not greatest, historic American watch brands, now the "go to cheap Swiss" brand along with Tissot. Times change. They're all part of the same corporation now. It wouldn't make sense for them to all compete against each other for the...




www.watchuseek.com





And for that matter, so does Louis Vuitton who have been manufacturing their own movements for some watches partnered with Fabrique du Temps.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> I addressed this in another thread. RL absolutely makes high end watches and lots of other excellent ones... so I'll just link to that post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no, not sold.

ralph Lauren belongs in the enthusiast category, at best.

Montblanc is significantly higher tier than Ralph Lauren.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Here are Ralph Lauren’s watch offerings from their own website. Fairly lower end entry level offerings. One novelty tourbillion but everything else is fashion brand stuff.

to compare this with brands like breitling or Cartier or omega is a pretty big stretch. To put this selection above brands like ball or bell and Ross or Longines is insulting to those brands. 










Men's Watches & Watch Straps | Ralph Lauren


Shop men's watches and straps and find everything from designer watches to leather watch straps and silk watch straps. Free Fast Shipping With an RL Account & Free Returns.




www.ralphlauren.com


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> I addressed this in another thread. RL absolutely makes high end watches and lots of other excellent ones... so I'll just link to that post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just to reiterate - I really like that last square watch.
It's a bold design but also well-considered.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> Fairly lower end entry level offerings.


When the cheapest are ~$2000 and many are over $5000? Hardly lower and entry level. Remember, a lot of that tier list is based on estimated sale prices. I'm completely convinced. Maybe not that they belong as high as they're listed, but that it's not too far off and reasonable in any case.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

dbostedo said:


> When the cheapest are ~$2000 and many are over $5000? Hardly lower and entry level. Remember, a lot of that tier list is based on estimated sale prices. I'm completely convinced. Maybe not that they belong as high as their listed, but that it's not too far off and reasonable in any case.


One major point that tipped them firmly into luxury for me is they used Piaget movements in their Slim Classique line.
WIS don't like the fact (and can't accept) that fashion brands have more money than many "real" watch companies when it comes to leveraging high-quality Swiss manufacturing to order, but it is what it is.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> When the cheapest are ~$2000 and many are over $5000? Hardly lower and entry level. Remember, a lot of that tier list is based on estimated sale prices. I'm completely convinced. Maybe not that they belong as high as they're listed, but that it's not too far off and reasonable in any case.


but compared to breitling, omega and Cartier, this is low end…

and they don’t have the comparable high end selections to even make this a conversation. They have a handful of expensive watches which be most likely are never actually purchased, while those other brands have numerous high end models.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Earthjade said:


> One major point that tipped them firmly into luxury for me is they used Piaget movements in their Slim Classique line.
> WIS don't like the fact (and can't accept) that fashion brands have more money than many "real" watch companies when it comes to leveraging high-quality Swiss manufacturing to order, but it is what it is.


this isn’t a plus for Ralph Lauren as a brand. They are ordering movements from Piaget, so now they are comparable to omega or breitling or Cartier? That just supports that they are not a horology house but a fashion name putting their logo on another maker’s product.

At least Montblanc bought Minerva when they started using a more established house to up their own line. 

and I just noticed that Piaget is ultra luxury?? What the…?? Piaget is fine enough when compared to omega or Breitling or Cartier, but probably a step below JLC or Girard Perregaux or Rolex or some of the others. I don’t think I have ever heard Piaget referred to as the top of the line?

dior is pretty funny on that list too.

sorry but this list is garbage.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

BallBearings said:


> this isn’t a plus for Ralph Lauren as a brand. They are ordering movements from Piaget, so now they are comparable to omega or breitling or Cartier? That just supports that they are not a horology house but a fashion name putting their logo on another maker’s product.


You mean like Sinn? They case Sellita and other such movements. What's their in-house calibre?
What about Louis Vuitton? They have full vertical integration for their watch line. They don't count, but Cartier does?


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

The only 


Earthjade said:


> You mean like Sinn? They case Sellita and other such movements. What's their in-house calibre?
> What about Louis Vuitton? They have full vertical integration for their watch line. They don't count, but Cartier does?


I don’t think highly of Sinn. Not sure what they have to do with anything.

Louis Vuitton is another fashion house, not a horology house.

the only fashion house that has made progress in terms of credibility recently in terms of respect is montblanc, and they are well above door or Ralph Lauren or Louis vitton.
Cartier I suppose could be said to be a fashion house but their watchmaking is well established and respected and has an iconic nature to it that only a few brands can boast.
Louis vitton or Dior trying to emulate Cartier does not put them on the same level, as Cartier has generations of production behind the brand and iconic characteristics behind their watches that those other fashion houses will never touch. Ever.

and Piaget as top of the line is equally laughable. The only Piagets that are going for any real money in chrono24 are because of their finishing and jewelry in the cases, not because of the watch quality. And by real money I’m not talking about anything all that impressive when compared to many other brands that you compare or rank Piaget above.

not sure why you would rank fashion houses on par with titans of the industry, or where your over valuation of Piaget coke from, but it makes this list look laughable at best.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Jacquet Droz ultra high luxury?

LOL

on what planet is Jaquet Droz more high end that Girard Perregaux? Sure they have some new expensive pieces with some beautiful/pretty designs, but come on.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> and I just noticed that Piaget is ultra luxury?? What the…?? Piaget is fine enough when compared to omega or Breitling or Cartier, but probably a step below JLC or Girard Perregaux or Rolex or some of the others. I don’t think I have ever heard Piaget referred to as the top of the line?
> 
> dior is pretty funny on that list too.
> 
> sorry but this list is garbage.


Did you actually read the thread and how the list was generated and what the criteria are? If not, you should.


----------



## DarkSoan (Jan 17, 2019)

I don't think a visual representation like this will ever work, even in the consumer brands there are pieces that belong to the enthusiast category just to say one thing, it's fun but nothing else.


----------



## StephenCanale (Mar 24, 2016)

Good effort, but I'd suggest there are too many uses of the word Luxury to be easily distinct for many viewers.

Maybe consider re-labeling the Ultra Luxury to "Veblen Goods" and have a category for "Fashion Watches" for a bit more useful classification?

I also think you could eliminate High-End Luxury and reshuffle brands into the other existing categories.

Just a suggestion.


----------



## Terry M. (Apr 15, 2007)

🍿


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> Did you actually read the thread and how the list was generated and what the criteria are? If not, you should.


he has Ralph Lauren on the same tier as omega and breitling and Cartier. 
why would I read more into it than that?

he Obviously works for one of these fashion houses, or perhaps Piaget, and is pushing an agenda. This list is horrible.

the only thing that will get people excited about this list is the mediocrity of the ranking of Rolex, which always makes people happy. (Not saying he’s even wrong, but that’s a common clickbait move for these lists)


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> why would I read more into it than that?


Well if you're not going to bother to try to understand the criteria, your judgement of the list isn't very valid. Specifically, the list is largely based on estimated average sale price, and Piaget's is very high. Simple as that for Piaget. Disagreeing on RL is understandable, but even then, understanding how/why the list is created makes your arguments more valid and understood as well.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> Well if you're not going to bother to try to understand the criteria, your judgement of the list isn't very valid. Specifically, the list is largely based on estimated average sale price, and Piaget's is very high. Simple as that for Piaget. Disagreeing on RL is understandable, but even then, understanding how/why the list is created makes your arguments more valid and understood as well.


piaget average sale price is not very high. Go on chrono24. They don’t really have many watches at six figures and most of the $50k type watches are due to diamonds in the casing and such.
there are plenty of JLC or Girard Perregaux in the 6 figure range. And those are expensive due to the watch complications and brand heritage, not because they put diamonds in a gold bezel. I’m no Piaget hater, but I would probably put them with omega and breitling, a step below Rolex for sure. This list has Piaget all the way at the highest level, ahead of JLC and GP. Whaaaaat???

And that logic is completely flawed. Louis Vuitton, for example, might have access now to some high end makers. But to compare it to Cartier because they are both fashion houses who are making expensive watches while disregarding the history and the brand equity is foolish. Cartier is perhaps the second most iconic watch company in the world, associated with princess diana and numerous other well regarded people of statute.
a new comer can’t just spend some money on new in house manufacturing and claim to suddenly capture all the brand equity Cartier has developed over decades. Not how it works.

the list is foolish. Ralph Lauren compared to omega and breitling is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> Go on chrono24.


Again, go read what this list is based on. 



BallBearings said:


> But to compare it to Cartier because they are both fashion houses who are making expensive watches while disregarding the history and the brand equity is foolish.


Why is it foolish? Nothing wrong with not valuing history over other criteria. I don't really. And I don't care if they are "fashion houses" or not - only about the watches, personally. I wouldn't rank things (and they're not ranked here) based on being fashion houses or not. 

It's clear you have your own criteria in mind. But that is completely subjective. And no more valid in this case, considering the criteria are mostly laid out in this thread. It's kind of like if I ranked sports teams by market value, and you argued that it's a bad list because they should be ranked by titles. Valid point - but not really a valid argument given the criteria.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> Again, go read what this list is based on.
> 
> 
> Why is it foolish? Nothing wrong with not valuing history over other criteria. I don't really. And I don't care if they are "fashion houses" or not - only about the watches, personally. I wouldn't rank things (and they're not ranked here) based on being fashion houses or not.
> ...


the post says watch hierarchy.
it doesn’t say “my personal list based purely on cost of watches (and I will break that rule for brands I like)”

i could make a car hierarchy list. Put Kia next to Ferrari, and when people call me out for how foolish the list is I can say: “go look at my criteria…”

but ultimately the list would be stupid. Like this list is stupid.

your sports team is a good example. If you titles that list “best sports teams” and then went solely on market value, that list would be a bad list. And telling people to go look at the criteria wouldn’t make it better


----------



## Orsoni (Jun 30, 2013)

WWII fighter pilots knotched their kills by painting them onto their fuselage.

If this thread was a fighter plane, it’s fuselage would have a bucketful of panties going down in a wad


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> your sports team is a good example. If you titles that list “best sports teams” and then went solely on market value, that list would be a bad list.


OK, but nothing about the term "watch hierarchy" or "tiers" implies any particular criteria. In fact, they're pretty generic terms open to many criteria.


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

Hey guys. I have a puzzle. Let's see who can solve it.


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> OK, but nothing about the term "watch hierarchy" or "tiers" implies any particular criteria. In fact, they're pretty generic terms open to many criteria.


strongly disagree. 
i believe “watch hierarchy” as a connotation that one on a product forum already has a feeling for. It is such a often discussed topic, and there are some norms as to the definition. 
so to make a list and label it with a generic title that most here already have a meaning associated with, but then To change the definition, makes it a very poor list.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

TheBearded said:


> Hey guys. I have a puzzle. Let's see who can solve it.
> 
> View attachment 16680316
> View attachment 16680317


Aluminum Thanksgiving.
Nailed it.


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

TheBearded said:


> Hey guys. I have a puzzle. Let's see who can solve it.
> 
> View attachment 16680316
> View attachment 16680317


Me! Me!

I think you’re trying to say….

Knob + Gobbler?


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> Aluminum Thanksgiving.
> Nailed it.


Can’t eat an aluminium turkey


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

BallBearings said:


> strongly disagree.


Well then we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. The first post I made in this thread was "What are the criteria? How were they applied?" 









Hey all, I made a watch brand hierarchy tier list


The problem with these kinds of rankings is the category description. This is similar to the issue that vexed Wittgenstein to no end in his famous musings on "games." With this in mind, it blows my mind that Seiko, Citizen, Casio and Orient are relegated to the lowest tier of "Consumer." These...




www.watchuseek.com





I saw no assumption of what tiers or hierarchy meant - it's very nebulous as shown in countless similar threads on here over the years. At least in this case there's a fair bit of objectiveness applied. But you always need to establish and understand criteria for rankings/lists of any sort, otherwise everyone is just throwing out their own, and highly variable, gut feels.


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

BundyBear said:


> Can’t eat an aluminium turkey


Wait a minute.... aussies say alu_minium, _too?
Well... I suppose y'all are kinda British. Like, the Texas version of British. 

I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard my GM say aluminum... for the life of me I can't remember if i ever have. 

I have had a "conversation" with an Irish Aussie. F*** me, talk about mind melting.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

TheBearded said:


> Wait a minute.... aussies say alu_minium, _too?
> Well... I suppose y'all are kinda British. Like, the Texas version of British.
> 
> I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard my GM say aluminum... for the life of me I can't remember if i ever have.
> ...


We do say aluminium with the extra i.
Caramel actually has another "a" in it, if you weren't paying attention.
Come to think of it, you also notice how "Antarctica" has two Ts? Almost like both should be pronounced.
Herb also has a "h" that is pronounced.
"Solder" has an L, don't you know.
And "emu" is actually pronounced E-MYU.
"Human" starts with a H, not a Y.
"Squirrel" is SUK-WI-RELL, not the sound you make when gargling mouthwash (or gobbling knobs).


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

dbostedo said:


> Well then we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. The first post I made in this thread was "What are the criteria? How were they applied?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah,
I guess when I saw “watch tier hierarchy” o thought the poster was using commonly accepted criteria instead of pulling something out of his ass.


----------



## bullshark (Dec 30, 2013)

Apart from the very few who might be built one at a time by skilled craftsmen, they are all mass produced consumer products. So, what's the differentiator here, price? If that's the case, what's the cutoff point? And what do you do with companies who have products ranging from 100 buck to over 5k? Or is there something else entirely, and if so, what is it?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

BallBearings said:


> instead of pulling something out of his ass.


You're a real class act.
Lots of opinions and rude.






brandguide - Watches


r/Watches: A subreddit for discussion of wrist watches and pocket watches.




www.reddit.com


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

bullshark said:


> Apart from the very few who might be built one at a time by skilled craftsmen, they are all mass produced consumer products. So, what's the differentiator here, price? If that's the case, what's the cutoff point? And what do you do with companies who have products ranging from 100 buck to over 5k? Or is there something else entirely, and if so, what is it?


We discussed all of this throughout the thread.
Nothing new has been contributed to this thread over the past day or so, apart from the riddle.


----------



## bullshark (Dec 30, 2013)

Earthjade said:


> We discussed all of this throughout the thread.
> Nothing new has been contributed over the past day or so, apart from the riddle.


Sorry, started reading the thread, but most post were about somebody's favorite not high enough, or the opposite, so I got bored and stopped.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

bullshark said:


> Sorry, started reading the thread, but most post were about somebody's favorite not high enough, or the opposite, so I got bored and stopped.


Yes.
It's not a compelling read, for the most part.

Price is the primary differentiator with some minor modifiers that make some brands go up and down one tier (i.e. reputation but mainly for brands that are relatively new like Bell & Ross, lowest retail price of entry, resale).
Brands like Seiko are represented by their sub-brands to account for the different tiers they sell in. They are just too big to handle otherwise. But for all others, it generally falls on their average, representative model. For example, many brands can make high horology pieces, like Tissot. But they are statistical outliers and not counted.


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> We do say aluminium with the extra i.
> *I'll never understand this. Just, no.*
> Caramel actually has another "a" in it, if you weren't paying attention.
> *Yes, agreed.*
> ...


----------



## JLittle (Nov 7, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> You're a real class act.
> Lots of opinions and rude.
> 
> 
> ...


Cheers to you for being bold enough to make the tier list for all to agree with or not agree with. Of course, some have to be rude about everything, especially in an anonymous forum with no repercussions for their mouth.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

JLittle said:


> Cheers to you for being bold enough to make the tier list for all to agree with or not agree with. Of course, some have to be rude about everything, especially in an anonymous forum with no repercussions for their mouth.


It was just for a bit of fun.
Posters here reference the chart from time to time, so that's also cool to see.


----------



## Xaltotun (Apr 19, 2007)

Ressence is ultra-luxury? Really? With that stupid 🖐 logo?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

TheBearded said:


> *Pronounced "sodder"*


Yeah, nah.


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

Xaltotun said:


> Ressence is ultra-luxury? Really? With that stupid 🖐 logo?


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands.
> There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline.
> So here it is (comments welcome):
> 
> ...












Where's Thomas Prescher? Roger W Smith? Konstantin Chaykin? Christiaan van der Klaauw? And SHINOLA?!!! And SuperGroupies?!!!!! What a HORRIBLE LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

sleepyhead123 said:


> View attachment 16680499
> 
> 
> Where's Thomas Prescher? Roger W Smith? Konstantin Chaykin? Christiaan van der Klaauw? And SHINOLA?!!! And SuperGroupies?!!!!! What a HORRIBLE LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Needs more pearl clutching:


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> We do say aluminium with the extra i.
> Caramel actually has another "a" in it, if you weren't paying attention.
> Come to think of it, you also notice how "Antarctica" has two Ts? Almost like both should be pronounced.
> Herb also has a "h" that is pronounced.
> ...


HAHAHA. We're having an Oz-glish lesson here.


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

Earthjade said:


> It was just for a bit of fun.
> *Posters here reference the chart from time to time*, so that's also cool to see.


.... and please do not change it again at someone's whims. This was discussed to the _nth _degree and we all somewhat settled on it. 

Majority of the members here are happy with it. We can't be all things to all men, so I would leave it for now, unless a brand goes up market or some brand goes bust and it needs to be updated again.

Good on you @Earthjade - for the effort in making this poster up and we all need to appreciate the efforts that members go through more often.


----------



## debussychopin (Feb 16, 2018)

I would have loved to see baume mercier kicked down a few notches. It's my favorite brand but I want it on the down- low. Federico says it's gonna disappear soon by how richemont manhandled the brand. Can't wait.


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

Earthjade said:


> Yeah, nah.


Nah, yeah.


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

TheBearded said:


> Nah, yeah.


Yeah, nah = means no.
Nah, yeah = means yes.

Just like the animals which evolved differently from the rest of the world, our language has evolved differently as well.


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

BundyBear said:


> Yeah, nah = means no.
> Nah, yeah = means yes.
> 
> Just like the animals which evolved differently from the rest of the world, our language has evolved differently as well.


That's what I'm sayin' Bundy.
It _is _pronounced sodder. 
I'll fight y'all over this.


I'm sure I've got a stingray barb around here somewhere.


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

TheBearded said:


> That's what I'm sayin' Bundy.
> It _is _pronounced sodder.
> I'll fight y'all over this.
> 
> ...


I am aware of the differences in pronunciation.






Solder, not Sodder? The Story behind the Silent (or not so Silent) L | Simply Smarter Circuitry Blog


|ˈsɒldə(r)| and |ˈsəʊdə(r)| The word solder originates in Middle English. The Latin origin is the word solidaire, meaning to “to




www.circuitspecialists.com


----------



## Yicker In Indiana (10 mo ago)

BundyBear said:


> Yeah, nah = means no.
> Nah, yeah = means yes.
> 
> Just like the animals which evolved differently from the rest of the world, our language has evolved differently as well.


And of course, yeah nah yeah…


----------



## BundyBear (Mar 3, 2018)

Yicker In Indiana said:


> And of course, yeah nah yeah…


HAHAHA


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

Earthjade said:


> We discussed all of this throughout the thread.
> Nothing new has been contributed to this thread over the past day or so, apart from the riddle.


you stand by this joke of a list?


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

BallBearings said:


> you stand by this joke of a list?


Sure.
Who are you again?


----------



## StephenCanale (Mar 24, 2016)

Yicker In Indiana said:


> And of course, yeah nah yeah…


Child's play....


----------



## BallBearings (8 mo ago)

JLittle said:


> Cheers to you for being bold enough to make the tier list for all to agree with or not agree with. Of course, some have to be rude about everything, especially in an anonymous forum with no repercussions for their mouth.


i would say it to his face. 
polo Ralph Lauren belongs nowhere near the same discussion as omega or Cartier or breitling or IWC
And if the poster were honest, he would probably chuckle and agree.

and Piaget ultra high luxury? We could then get a good laugh out of that too.


----------



## oldbrat (Feb 7, 2020)

BallBearings said:


> you stand by this joke of a list?


Why not make your own list and give me some good laughs?


----------



## shopper2200 (Sep 22, 2020)

Glad MVMT & Calvin Klein are the same box as Casio, Seiko & Orient. I like it.


----------



## CioChan (5 mo ago)

you miss a ****ty brand.Vincero


----------



## greggogava (5 mo ago)

How’s is Rolex high end watch?


----------



## greggogava (5 mo ago)

How’s Rolex high-end luxury watch? 😳


----------



## Orsoni (Jun 30, 2013)

Someone, somewhere, somehow will pay for this.



or not


----------



## TheBearded (Jan 8, 2020)

I love it when this thread gets revived.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

greggogava said:


> How’s Rolex high-end luxury watch? 😳


Read the whole thread and it's explained.


----------



## shopper2200 (Sep 22, 2020)

Where's Dan Henry ??


----------



## Earthjade (Jan 5, 2018)

shopper2200 said:


> Where's Dan Henry ??











Dan Henry Watches: Vintage Limited Edition Watches & Chronographs


Vintage watches created by the renowned watch collector Dan Henry. Limited edition watches and chronographs.




danhenrywatches.com


----------



## abstractreality (11 mo ago)

Very well done. It gives amateur collectors a broad template showing where brands stand.


----------



## b.colangelo683 (3 mo ago)

Earthjade said:


> So there was a watch hierarchy thread going round on the board right now and everyone can agree that it was pretty freaking bad in how it ranked watch brands. There has always been this one graphic from a blog (link HERE) that I thought ranked watches very well but it was missing a lot of brands we talk about around here. So I updated that graphic and tweaked a few of the rankings I thought were a little off. I tried to be as objective as possible, but there were a few placings that I felt were borderline. So here it is (comments welcome):
> View attachment 16445120
> EDITS since original post:
> Bumped Tissot from Enthusiast to Consumer - too mainstream to be an enthusiast watch.
> ...


 Overall I this this list is very well done. We all have our options but yet you seem to have almost everyone's with your selections. If this was my list my 3 changes would be as follows. 1. Hamilton up to Quasi-luxury 2. Oris up to Entry level Luxury. 3. Switch Rolex and Grand Seiko. Well done!


----------



## Weetabix (Jun 10, 2018)

Crisker said:


> Each watch needs to be considered on its own.


I know it will take a bit of time, but once you've compiled this graphic, please post a link.


----------



## hesssr2927 (3 mo ago)

What about Auguste Reymond? I did not see them on the list.


----------



## KingOfQueens (Feb 24, 2019)

This is great. Thx for putting it together. Can’t wait to share w/ my son who is becoming very interested in watches!

I love that you have Epos on this list as they are often overlooked. My 2 cents would be that Rolex is Luxury rather than High End. I also don’t see much talk on these boards about Chopard. Chopard is a respectable watch brand IMHO (But I don’t own one).


----------

