# Defining a "High End Watch"



## casiogshock (Oct 2, 2009)

I'm bowing down to the knowlegable folk in this forum.
My question is how do you define a "High End Watch"
Is there such a thing as an "affordable High End"?
And when I mean affordable, I mean at what kind of price would they start at and why?
I hope this is not a question that imposes too much on anyone to answer.
I'm just trying to educate myself in this field as I have an intrest in watches as do most folk visiting "Ernie's house".
I'm not interested in material finish like gold or gold plate. More so in the mechanics of the watch, design and band.

Kindest regards

Paul


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:-s It's all relative.


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

My own definition would be something like:

- have to have an "in-house" movement

OR

- must have a major complication (simple day-date, power reserve, moonphase, etc. is out)

OR

- must have a high-end (preferably chronometer) generic movement

AND

- must have decent movement finissage

On the basis of all those, I'd rule out most Seikos and Citizens, not because they are Japanese but because the movement finissage is somewhat poor. In the old (pre-quartz) days, e.g. Junghans would also be out since, although they made in-house movements, the standard was not really any better than watches with generic ETA calibres. I would, however, include non-in-house IWCs, Ulysse Nardins, Chronoswiss, etc. with generic calibres which are of high standard and have good finissage. Chronographs (even with Valjoux 7750) are in anyway since they constitute a major complication, despite their abundance. For the purpose of this forum, I would also restrict it to mechanical watches (there is a High End Quartz forum here too).

Well, that's my 0.02$ anyway.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## GinGinD (Feb 29, 2008)

A bit snobby of me, I guess, but I don't consider anything mass-produced to be high end. To me, expensive mass-produced watches--even those with in-house movements--are luxury watches. I reserve the term "high end" for hand-crafted watches with complications. 


Jeannie


----------



## casiogshock (Oct 2, 2009)

Thankyou all for your input. Whether it it be 0.02 cents worth or not.
Didn't realize how complicated things can get in this field.
Food for thought in my future purchase.
I appreciate the information. Can anyone recomend a book in this field so I can get a better knowledge base without bothering all you nice folk all the time? That way, in the future, I can at least contribute to the conversations with a more dignified reply :-d

Sincerly yours 

Paul


----------



## casiogshock (Oct 2, 2009)

GinGinD said:


> A bit snobby of me, I guess, but I don't consider anything mass-produced to be high end. To me, expensive mass-produced watches--even those with in-house movements--are luxury watches. I reserve the term "high end" for hand-crafted watches with complications.
> 
> Jeannie


Hi Jeannie,

Just a small question. If budget was an issue, and I wanted to buy a reliable time piece (not necessarily in gold finish-I like stainless steel)
what brand would I start with at the lower end of the market. Just so I can see what I'd be paying for.

Appreciating the answer in advance

Paul


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:think: Most of Lang & Heyne's watches have no complications, are hand crafted and really fit the term. This can be said for Delaloye and some others as well.


GinGinD said:


> A bit snobby of me, I guess, but I don't consider anything mass-produced to be high end. To me, expensive mass-produced watches--even those with in-house movements--are luxury watches. I reserve the term "high end" for hand-crafted watches with complications.
> 
> Jeannie


----------



## GinGinD (Feb 29, 2008)

Watchbreath said:


> :think: Most of Lang & Heyne's watches have no complications, are hand crafted and really fit the term. This can be said for Delaloye and some others as well.


Well I agree the edges can get blurry, but I'm gonna stick with complications as a requirement for me to consider a manufacture as haute horologie. One reason we didn't define "high end" when creating this forum is that we knew opinions would vary quite a bit since it's pretty subjective.

Jeannie


----------



## casiogshock (Oct 2, 2009)

Again, thankyou all for the assistance.

Paul


----------



## GinGinD (Feb 29, 2008)

casiogshock said:


> Hi Jeannie,
> 
> Just a small question. If budget was an issue, and I wanted to buy a reliable time piece (not necessarily in gold finish-I like stainless steel)
> what brand would I start with at the lower end of the market. Just so I can see what I'd be paying for.
> ...


Alas, Paul, I'm not the best person to ask. I do a lot of drooling, but can't afford to actually fish in those ponds.

Jeannie


----------



## ulackfocus (Oct 17, 2008)

I know you mentioned that you weren't concerned about whether the case was gold plated or solid gold, but external cosmetic appearance does play a role. I would have to say it's probably a good rule of thumb that a high end watch has a case made of a solid metal, preferably a precious one. 

Another handy measuring stick is an in-house movement. For example, I'll use watches I own. I have an IWC Spitfire Mark XV but I don't consider it significantly better quality than the Breitling ChronoCockpit or Omega Aqua Terra it sits next to in my box because it's still a refinished ETA no matter how much work is done to it. IWC makes a few in-house movements with serious complications that definitely qualify though. I have several vintage Omega and Longines watches, and even though they mostly used in-house movements I don't consider them all high end vintage pieces. The 1966 Omega Constellation 18K pie pan caliber 564 and the 1960 Longines Conquest 18K caliber 291 are two I do consider high end because they were the pinnacle of their respective brand's offerings at the time, and both manufacturers were at the top of the heap in that era. 

One more point to put out there for debate: can a tool watch be high end? By definition, a tool watch is built for a purpose and not for show - kind of a blue collar item. Even now that Breitling and Omega have their own in-house movements being installed into some models, I can't consider them to be high end. But then you look at the Vacheron Constantin Overseas or Audemars Piguet Royal Oak and how can you NOT call them high end?


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm curious: the IWC MKXII used a JLC Cal.889 with minor reworking while the MKXV uses an ETA Cal.2892 with significant reworking. Apart from the minor difference that that 2892 winds like a Russian tractor while the 889 winds with a discrete zipping noise and the 889 has a barely audible tick, in my experience there really isn't much to choose between them in terms of performance.

When IWC switched supplier, did they drop from being high end? 

JLC have provided movements to many, many high end manufactures, as have Lemania. As it happens, Lemania became Nouvelle Lemania and are now simply Breguet. This means that the Omega Speedmaster has moved from having a Lemania movement to a Breguet movement. Does this mean that the Speedmaster with the 'Breguet' 1861 movement is now high end? 

My intuition is that IWC did drop while the Breguet connection makes little difference. As this is an inconsistent position to hold I guess I'm not sure.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:think: My Poljot 2633 is one of the smoothest winders I ever had.


M4tt said:


> I'm curious: the IWC MKXII used a JLC Cal.889 with minor reworking while the MKXV uses an ETA Cal.2892 with significant reworking. Apart from the minor difference that that 2892 winds like a Russian tractor while the 889 winds with a discrete zipping noise and the 889 has a barely audible tick, in my experience there really isn't much to choose between them in terms of performance.
> 
> When IWC switched supplier, did they drop from being high end?
> 
> ...


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

casiogshock said:


> Is there such a thing as an "affordable High End" ?


Sure there is, normally high-end watches have high retail price in shops, but you can buy them in grey market for half of the retail price, at this point they are "affordable high-end" as you said.


----------



## M4tt (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm not sure that I can find any Poljot 2633 in any of my manuals but if it is a 2623 then it is a manual wind, not an automatic -I was talking about the noise that an automatic winder makes. 

Either way, I'm surprised that you think it is such a smooth winder as it has a very ordinary click set up on quite a coarse wheel. How is it smooth?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Its' smooth and linear all the way to the stop, no clicks. This also includes
the AS 1673 in my Lucien Piccard, automatic, and is full wound at eight
turns to the stop.


M4tt said:


> I'm not sure that I can find any Poljot 2633 in any of my manuals but if it is a 2623 then it is a manual wind, not an automatic -I was talking about the noise that an automatic winder makes.
> 
> Either way, I'm surprised that you think it is such a smooth winder as it has a very ordinary click set up on quite a coarse wheel. How is it smooth?


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

casiogshock said:


> Hi Jeannie,
> 
> Just a small question. If budget was an issue, and I wanted to buy a reliable time piece (not necessarily in gold finish-I like stainless steel)
> what brand would I start with at the lower end of the market. Just so I can see what I'd be paying for.
> ...


Hi Paul, exactly what sort of budget are you working with (as it's all relative)?


----------



## FlyPenFly (May 18, 2009)

How about just MSPR $5000+ (adjust for inflation starting from 2009)


----------



## Barnaby (Jul 21, 2008)

It's funny...I was in Hong Kong the other day looking at the Sea-Gull watches on display in a jewellers just off Nathan Street. Those have 'in-house' movements, some serious complications (chronographs, minute repeaters, tourbillons), solid metal cases, including SS and 18K gold...all the rest of it.

Would anyone here consider, say, a Sea-Gull 18k minute repeater to be 'high-end'? The one I saw was a limited edition and cost about 40 grand in US dollars. How about one of their tourbillons? If yes, then what about a chronograph?

Personally, I think that 'high-end' should mean an in-house, limited production movement with several original features (so the Sea-Gull minute repeater I saw qualifies, as does their double tourbillon, but their chronographs don't, as those movements are in everything)...or an existing ebauche finished to an extremely high level of technical perfection. This should be well beyond the level of, say, the 7750 modified for the IWC Portuguese. More like a Patek/Vacheron finish. Still, for me, the dream watches will always be Lange, Dufour, Journe...you get the idea.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:-s A higher flying Sea-Gull.


Barnaby said:


> It's funny...I was in Hong Kong the other day looking at the Sea-Gull watches on display in a jewellers just off Nathan Street. Those have 'in-house' movements, some serious complications (chronographs, minute repeaters, tourbillons), solid metal cases, including SS and 18K gold...all the rest of it.
> 
> Would anyone here consider, say, a Sea-Gull 18k minute repeater to be 'high-end'? The one I saw was a limited edition and cost about 40 grand in US dollars. How about one of their tourbillons? If yes, then what about a chronograph?
> 
> Personally, I think that 'high-end' should mean an in-house, limited production movement with several original features (so the Sea-Gull minute repeater I saw qualifies, as does their double tourbillon, but their chronographs don't, as those movements are in everything)...or an existing ebauche finished to an extremely high level of technical perfection. This should be well beyond the level of, say, the 7750 modified for the IWC Portuguese. More like a Patek/Vacheron finish. Still, for me, the dream watches will always be Lange, Dufour, Journe...you get the idea.


----------



## cbeeches (Sep 19, 2007)

Who suggested this forum? It would seem to have such a limited audience.
Are not most covered by a forum unless they are an obscure or limited boutique brand?

Opps, Wrong placement in thread, my bad.


----------



## 124Spider (Feb 1, 2009)

I think that to be high end, a watch must meet both of these criteria:

1. Be fairly expensive, new, from an AD after applying whatever discount you can get. Perhaps US$7500 would be a decent soft cutoff to me.

2. Be produced in low numbers.

The more interesting the complications a watch has, the more likely I am to consider it "high end." To me, "high end" has connotations not merely of expensive, but of being unusual, so that you won't likely run into another person wearing the same watch ever.

I don't really care about in-house movement nearly as much as I care about an interesting movement. A heavily modified ETA movement, with unusual complications (e.g., so many of Martin Braun's watches) is more likely to strike me as "high end" than a fine, beautiful watch, costing the same amount, without interesting complications and which is produced in high numbers.


----------



## big bird (Sep 19, 2009)

The problem with any definition is that the term "High End" is from the lexon of fluffy marketing speech

...and is a term so vague and indeterminate as to have no intrinsic meaning

"high" could refer to the price, or its perceived desirability, or to the advanced state of the technology or craftsmanship employed in its manufacture... who is to say?

"end" could refer to it's position in the market place - either at the top of the pricing scale or merely that it is only available in tiny numbers, or again maybe to the advanced state of the watch's technology... etc.

Neither of these terms refer specifically or necessarily to any quality inherent in the watch itself, but rather to how people think/talk/feel about those watches. 

In other words, "High end watch" is about as meaningfull or as useful a term as "Posh watch" 

bb


----------



## casiogshock (Oct 2, 2009)

big bird said:


> The problem with any definition is that the term "High End" is from the lexon of fluffy marketing speech
> 
> ...and is a term so vague and indeterminate as to have no intrinsic meaning
> 
> ...


Can I then ask this question, since I started all this in the first place:

Are high end watches individually made and in low quantities? ie like Lamborghini's? Is Vacheron Constantine such a brand of "High End Watch? Or are all Swiss watches covered under this umbrella?
Again, I appreciate the knowledge of those on this forum and thank in advance

Paul


----------



## Der Biermeister (Aug 26, 2010)

This has been an interesting read - and very informative as to upscale watches.

There were several posts mentioning "complications" as a serious requirement for High-end. Also, I read a few posts mentioning Minute Repeaters as falling into that category.

Some 19 years ago -- I bought a limited edition Citizen "Minute Repeater" for around $350 (as I remember). It was my reward for quiting smoking. Here is a picture of a similar model - though not exactly the same. Unfortunately, I cannot find a pic of mine -- and mine is off getting a battery replaced.










Unless I am way off base - I believe this watch to have a great deal of "complications". Also, it is a beautiful piece and the minute repeater chimes are wonderful. I've never had an issue with accuracy or detailing. If memory serves me correct (and I could be wrong), this was advertized 19 yrs ago as the very first Minute Repeater watch. Minute Repeaters go way back to the Revolutionary War days and were somewhat large clocks.

Btw -- Citizen now makes an ECO version of the Minute Repeater. I've given it a test drive and find it "wanting" (looks, chimes, etc.) in comparison to my 19 yr. old model.

I know from conversations with Jeannie, that this watch wouldn't make it to first base in-so-far as being High-end. I only offer it up as an example of a dang nice watch with complications and uniqueness.


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

A good example that a Quartz watch can have interesting complications, and still belong to the Affordable section.
(I mean, only a quartz can be accurate, and have complications and cost under $500 or so)

I disagree very strongly that it is a requrement that a High End watch has complications.
Quality, Quality, Quality!!


----------



## jobryan (Apr 27, 2010)

in my opinion it must have in house movement, or possibly could get away with extremely moddified eta's (like Breguet), movements assembled by hand, high quality case, bracelet or strap. As for affordable high ends, the cheapest new would be around $5000, used $3000, vintage $1000. Mainstream high end brands include, Patek Philippe, A lange and Sohne, Breguet, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Jaeger LeCoultre, Glasshutte Original, and Vacheron Constantin. Then there are some smaller extremely high end brands like Philippe Dofour, Greubel Forsey, Richard Mille, and many others.


----------



## dkouzou (Jun 10, 2008)

Not a definition
*Swatch Group watch and jewelry brands*

*Prestige and Luxury Range: *Breguet, Blancpain, Glashütte Original, Jaquet Droz, Léon Hatot, Omega, Tiffany & Co.;
*High Range: *Longines, Rado, Union Glashütte;
*Middle Range: *Tissot, ck watch & jewelry, Balmain, Certina, Mido, Hamilton;
*Basic Range: *Swatch, Flik Flak;
*Private label: *Endura.


----------



## Pendulum (Dec 6, 2010)

In my collection I own a Rolex datejust (1986 vintage) and this the only high end watch (kind of) that I own. It does impart a sense of pride of ownership for the quality of workmanship and reputation of the brand. Still I personally believe that to justify economically the price of a Breguet, Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin etc. you just have to be wealthy. Don't get me wrong, I would love to own a Breguet "grand complication" due to the superb craftmanship and the legendary history of the company (and Abraham Louis Breguet himself) but superb timepieces at a fraction of the cost can be bought to make a very fine collection. 'High end' is not just cost only, it requires a carefull evaluation in choosing watches of good quality and design that satisfies your desires. Then again, that A. Lange & Sohne split second chronograph looks mighty tempting (guess I'll just have to sell the wife, kids, house and dog - I'll keep the car) b-)


----------



## giwatchgal (Dec 6, 2010)

casiogshock said:


> I'm bowing down to the knowlegable folk in this forum.
> My question is how do you define a "High End Watch"
> Is there such a thing as an "affordable High End"?
> And when I mean affordable, I mean at what kind of price would they start at and why?
> ...


I think its defined by designer, price and accessibility. I just found this watch which is apparently one of a kind and $345k. So I'm giong to go ahead and assume this counts as one of a kind! http://balharbourshops.com/fashion-news-29.html


----------



## Benjamin Chin (May 11, 2008)

*Click on attached file for watch classifications.*


----------



## spareribs (Dec 6, 2007)

IMO, high end is something over $700 or $800 range. Maybe $900. It would usually have sapphire glass, swiss or other quality European movement, good quality case and finish with strong build quality with longevity especially. It's all you need in a watch in a fundamental sense. All the rest is dessert.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

FlyPenFly said:


> How about just MSPR $5000+ (adjust for inflation starting from 2009)


That narrows things down. The thing with "high-end" is that it really is all relative. Even "high-end" brands sometimes have lower end models as they want to expand their product porfolio. And even some non-high-end brands sometimes have movements that rival the best (like Mont Blanc's MB R200).

With your budget, you'd probably want to consider pre-owned models. And don't forget, even though brands like Rolex or IWC may not be considered "high-end" _per se_ they are excellent watches and would still command plenty of respect.


----------



## tompw (Feb 9, 2006)

To me "high end" are watches that focus primarily on the mechanical movement, the art, the history, the exclusivity (not exclusively in absolute terms mind you!), the passion, and the focus on creating a time piece for either true collectors or for those that appreciate mechanical horology. High end pieces would thus be the likes of Patek, Lange, AP, Breguet, Richard Mille, JLC, UN, to name but a few. 

As for an affordable high-end? Depends on the type of watch you go for. Patek's men's mechanical watches would start at over £11,000 for a simple watch (and dont get me started on the cheapest RM watch!). In my opinion JLC provides a lot more watch for your money and are a good buy. However I dont look at watches as investments (which to us watch enthusiasts is a somewhat taboo area) so I may be looking at this differently.

This is of course just my humble opinion.


----------



## bacari (Nov 14, 2007)

tompw said:


> To me "high end" are watches that focus primarily on the mechanical movement, the art, the history, the exclusivity (not exclusively in absolute terms mind you!), the passion, and the focus on creating a time piece for either true collectors or for those that appreciate mechanical horology. High end pieces would thus be the likes of Patek, Lange, AP, Breguet, Richard Mille, JLC, UN, to name but a few.
> 
> As for an affordable high-end? Depends on the type of watch you go for. Patek's men's mechanical watches would start at over £11,000 for a simple watch (and dont get me started on the cheapest RM watch!). In my opinion JLC provides a lot more watch for your money and are a good buy. However I dont look at watches as investments (which to us watch enthusiasts is a somewhat taboo area) so I may be looking at this differently.
> 
> This is of course just my humble opinion.


+1


----------



## trustthat (Sep 30, 2007)

spareribs said:


> IMO, high end is something over $700 or $800 range. Maybe $900. It would usually have sapphire glass, swiss or other quality European movement, good quality case and finish with strong build quality with longevity especially. It's all you need in a watch in a fundamental sense. All the rest is dessert.


I would not limit it to Swiss or quality European movements. Some other continents have High End Watches. For instance, Japan has some high-end pieces.


----------



## Ananda (Feb 28, 2008)

For me personally, it's a consensus thing.


----------



## Speech (Jan 31, 2010)

has to be 17th/18th Century and cost more than a small country if you as me! 

seriously though, it's about the complication, the history and the brand not over selling itself. The reason Rolex isn't high end, nor Omega is because they try to make a nice watch, then market it as something it isn't (which is an exemplary watch). Some houses just make the best watches they can possibly make, and for that it often commands a hefty price, they aren't too fussed about the marketing selling the product they product sells itself. For me a watch that just sells itself, that has so much quality and love in it's construction is high end. Don't care if that's timex or AP/A lange etc. as long as it has that feel of something great then it's high end if you ask me. 

can i get an amen?


----------



## Speech (Jan 31, 2010)

alternatively, if it's ever been owned by me then the provenance ALONE makes it high end... seriously, I'd make a 2824-2 high end 

(j/k ofc before i'm flamed)


----------



## tom_hanx (Apr 3, 2010)

I think in current time, it is fairly subjective - while many may agree on a model/brand being "high-end", there will always be those who say it is not-high-enough. Everyone sets the bar depending on their views. Some may consider Rolex to be high-end, others won't, as the entry-level is accessible to many. 

However, I think over time, those that remain high-end, are sought-after as vintages and are desired, even in crappy used states (desire to restore) are the true high-ends. Caveat is, there is no way to clearly distinguish those ahead of time


----------



## Bidle (Aug 5, 2006)

I agree with most of you, but for me personally a High-end watch is an expensive watch (+€20.000) can be with a complications but necessary but what is necessary is a perfect finish. Like the Geneva Seal.

UnfortunatelyI don't own any High-end watches, but will buy one some day when I'm old. For now it's just crazy. ;-)


----------



## d52vnv (Feb 20, 2011)

Speech said:


> alternatively, if it's ever been owned by me then the provenance ALONE makes it high end... seriously, I'd make a 2824-2 high end
> 
> (j/k ofc before i'm flamed)


IMO, there are "high end" movements are based off of this, I can think of the OMEGA 8500 as an example. So, I would consider 2824-2 "high end". It only depends whether it's assembled correctly or a cheap replica. I'm an engineer so accuracy and durability is what makes it "high end" for me.


----------



## mer6 (Sep 9, 2009)

ulackfocus said:


> I know you mentioned that you weren't concerned about whether the case was gold plated or solid gold, but external cosmetic appearance does play a role. I would have to say it's probably a good rule of thumb that a high end watch has a case made of a solid metal, preferably a precious one.
> 
> Another handy measuring stick is an in-house movement. For example, I'll use watches I own. I have an IWC Spitfire Mark XV but I don't consider it significantly better quality than the Breitling ChronoCockpit or Omega Aqua Terra it sits next to in my box because it's still a refinished ETA no matter how much work is done to it. IWC makes a few in-house movements with serious complications that definitely qualify though. I have several vintage Omega and Longines watches, and even though they mostly used in-house movements I don't consider them all high end vintage pieces. The 1966 Omega Constellation 18K pie pan caliber 564 and the 1960 Longines Conquest 18K caliber 291 are two I do consider high end because they were the pinnacle of their respective brand's offerings at the time, and both manufacturers were at the top of the heap in that era.
> 
> One more point to put out there for debate: can a tool watch be high end? By definition, a tool watch is built for a purpose and not for show - kind of a blue collar item. Even now that Breitling and Omega have their own in-house movements being installed into some models, I can't consider them to be high end. But then you look at the Vacheron Constantin Overseas or Audemars Piguet Royal Oak and how can you NOT call them high end?


True.

To whomever labeled watches @ $7500+ only high end (and to generalize to all price cutoffs), I would submit that all Glashuette watches, all Zenith watches qualify as high end (there are probably others that are not at the top of my head right now), but a handwind El Primero can be had new for roughly $2k...

Food for thought.


----------



## ed21x (Feb 11, 2011)

Here is how I classify watches:

Budget: Timex, Casio, less than $100 <~ grew up on this
Fashion: Fossil, Kenneth Cole ($70-200) <~ horrible, mass-produced crap
Best Value Dependable watches: Citizen, Seiko <~ i find purchases from this category easiest to justify ($300-1000)
Affordable Luxury: Omega ($1000-3000) <~ my first foray into something nice, with money from first job out of college
Luxury: Rolex ($3000+) <~ for the late twenty-somethings that have finally "made it" in their terms
High End: no longer massed produced, hand made in small quantities, unique movements, no two are the same ($20000+) <~ i don't think i'll be breaking into this category soon


----------



## mer6 (Sep 9, 2009)

tompw said:


> To me "high end" are watches that focus primarily on the mechanical movement, the art, the history, the exclusivity (not exclusively in absolute terms mind you!), the passion, and the focus on creating a time piece for either true collectors or for those that appreciate mechanical horology. High end pieces would thus be the likes of Patek, Lange, AP, Breguet, Richard Mille, JLC, UN, (added: GO, which I feel left out since it wasn't included and I'm a baby; Carl F. Bucherer, which seems quite popular and innovative in Switzerland even if it doesn't have much of a following in the US) to name but a few.
> 
> As for an affordable high-end? Depends on the type of watch you go for. Patek's men's mechanical watches would start at over £11,000 for a simple watch (and dont get me started on the cheapest RM watch!). In my opinion JLC provides a lot more watch for your money and are a good buy. However I dont look at watches as investments (which to us watch enthusiasts is a somewhat taboo area) so I may be looking at this differently.
> 
> This is of course just my humble opinion.





bacari said:


> +1


+1 more


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

Hi,

Here is my $.02 on the matter.

I would simply stratify the watch market by metrics of price point and the number of watches made per/year by a maker and would consider the size of the company who made it as secondary factor. 

> the upper quartile of "medium" in terms of price
< medium/high volume company
The size of the company who produced it a secondary influencing factor. If for example, a large company or high volume producer made a watch, I would modify the price requirement to be higher, say the upper half of medium/high in terms of price.



Bob


----------



## Stensbjerg (Feb 28, 2011)

To me high-end brand have in-house calibre in if not all there watches then almost, 
they also have to be innovative and come up with modelles that are complicatet on a reguler basic,a high finish and a good long history i also a +b-)

Brands I see as high-end is

VC,PP,AP,JLC,Lange,Breguet,GP,and Glashutte.


----------



## Souljer (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi,



casiogshock said:


> I'm bowing down to the knowlegable folk in this forum.
> My question is how do you define a "High End Watch"
> Is there such a thing as an "affordable High End"?
> And when I mean affordable, I mean at what kind of price would they start at and why?
> ...


Very interesting. 
I'll start out by saying I'm not a watch expert or collector. I don't know anything about movement numbers or who added what complication. I am an artist who makes stuff and has worked in markets where hand made and craftsmanship is a factor. So I have my own point of view and personal standards of what's important in a high grade item.

First off this is the best answer:


Watchbreath said:


> :-s It's all relative.


However there is more to look at if you want, since "relative" still requires comparisons and some sort of ideas to measure against. Relative to what, and in what way?

In my opinion, the most important thing about something that is supposed to be a functional tool (which I'm surprised was not mentioned more often, if at all), is functionality. If it's supposed to be a watch but never keeps accurate time, it's not high-end. Period. Materials, price or brand are not enough to carry it, if "High-End" or "High-Grade" is really supposed to mean something. Affordable? Yes, it's affordable if you can afford it. If high-end is only supposed to mean expensive then just say, 'expensive'. In which case, it's a High-End watch if you can't afford it or it requires it's own dedicated credit card. b-) The reason I say this is because this truly is relative. Not just to each other but to different versions of ourselves. What years ago you thought was insane at $2000. you now wear. Someone else used to balk at $5000, now their shopping for a $10,000. watch. Over there is someone who rolled up in a Rolls Royce. They're wearing a $40,000. watch and shopping for something with an alarm like a Jaeger LeCoultre, "You know something cheap I can wear daily. $15,000. or so". No problem, right this way...

However if it does not keep accurate time, I don't care how much gold or diamonds are used. It's an expensive paper weight strapped to your wrist. This means that quality is the number one thing you should be looking for and expecting from a high-end item. And demanding that is the customer's responsibility. That's what keeps companies strong and inventive. If customers only demand the brand (or a low price) and not the quality, then companies will be happy to sell you the name printed bigger on cheaper and crappier items.

Now, that said, if you want an honest, objective way of coming to some sort of consensus I would start by taking out the idea of you're talking about watches as much as possible. The guidelines should be simple truths. Like basic math. No politics, no elitism, no personal bias, not trying to impress anyone. Just the objective facts about the quality of the piece as an accurate tiny, timekeeper.

To me, something like the quote below is a good way to look at things. Not a thirty point list. No mention of prices. A few simple ideas that define in a positive way. Easy and not based on price or materials, which have nothing to do with quality.

Again the only thing I know and would add as the number one starting point is accuracy since to me that's the primary measure of a watch's quality. It has to be a practical watch. If high-end means above the standard watch then it seems logical that it's held to a higher standard of accuracy. It probably should be a level of accuracy that is a super-standard, above and beyond what other companies are required to meet (say for chronometer specification). I don't know what that could be because I don't know what the standard specifications are; ± 30 seconds per week? ± 10 seconds per day?


Hartmut Richter said:


> My own definition would be something like:
> 
> - have to have an "in-house" movement
> 
> ...


So rewriting the above I have injected a few questions of my own. I hope to get some clarifications and opinions.

I'll start with, a high-end or high-grade watch could begin at:

• Very accurate and reliable. Perhaps no greater variable than a weekly average of ±3 seconds per day or ±20 seconds per week. (*Question*: I'm not sure if that's possible or too easy. What are the standard standards?)
-Failing here it's not a high-end watch. If it can't tell the time, it's not really a watch of any kind, is it?

• Must have an "in-house" movement.

OR

• Must have a major complication 
-Minor complications like a simple day-date, power reserve, moon-phase are not enough. (*Question*: Would the inclusion of all of these count as a major complication? How about just one thing like second time zone or an alarm? Maybe I should ask here: What are major complications?)

OR

• Must have a high-end generic movement.

• Must have decent movement finissage.
-If the finishing is average at best it's not a high-end watch.

b-)
This is what I would consider if looking to determine if it's a high-end watch. A high-end brand would simply have a majority of it's products fit these criteria.
Looking forward to learning more.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

It's funny but this thread in which everyone is struggling to define "high-end" underlines the futility of trying to group watches in this way. It's much like the term "affordable" in that you really need a very specific context in order to make a judgement.
I think that, ultimately, it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things and getting hung up on a precise definition, amid all the contradictions, is pointless. We all know roughly if a particular watch could be considered "high end" for the purposes of inclusion in this forum. No one seems to be putting their Seiko 5 up for discussion.

I always feel a little sad when people seem to make a purchase decision (or advising someone who is) based on which of several brands is considered to be "higher end". Maybe, as general rule, we should be judging watches purely by how much we like them and forget about where they stand on some arbitrary, inconsistent scale of prestige.


----------



## Matty01 (Sep 6, 2011)

I am wearing my Speedmaster 125, the first ever cosc certified automatic watch, therefore high end.
Tomorrow, I may wear my Omega Italian market chronostop, exceedingly rare (in fact a numner of people on an Omega forum had never seen one) therefore high end. Or I might wear my Panerai 176, no complications, but about 7.5k including tax new in Australia, therefore high end. Im also thinking about buying a Kaventsmann Bathyal bronze, only complication is waterproof to 2800m depth, Id count that as a complication, plus case is hand made and only 20 made, therefore high end ... and I think we have already covered seagull ... I look forward to taking reciept of my WUS tourby! which necessarily, because it has a tourbillon, will be high end (plus limited production). That said theres plenty here would say none of these are high end and plenty who would say all of these are high end. 
I think the argument is on of rrp when new, depreciation rate at 1, 5, 10, 20, 30 yo... the rest is just personal preference


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

Matty01 said:


> I am wearing my Speedmaster 125, the first ever cosc certified automatic watch, therefore high end.
> Tomorrow, I may wear my Omega Italian market chronostop, exceedingly rare (in fact a numner of people on an Omega forum had never seen one) therefore high end. Or I might wear my Panerai 176, no complications, but about 7.5k including tax new in Australia, therefore high end. Im also thinking about buying a Kaventsmann Bathyal bronze, only complication is waterproof to 2800m depth, Id count that as a complication, plus case is hand made and only 20 made, therefore high end ... and I think we have already covered seagull ... I look forward to taking reciept of my WUS tourby! which necessarily, because it has a tourbillon, will be high end (plus limited production). That said theres plenty here would say none of these are high end and *plenty who would say all of these are high end*.
> I think the argument is on of rrp when new, depreciation rate at 1, 5, 10, 20, 30 yo... the rest is just personal preference


:think: just name one other person besides yourself...o|


----------



## Ace X (Sep 6, 2012)

Does not have to have, in-house movement but it must have a major complication/movement (must be chronometer certified like Rolex watches are). Mechanical watches required & no Quartz. No such thing as affordable High End. Price starts at $5,000.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

What's so special about a chronometer, after it's serviced it's in name only.


Ace X said:


> Does not have to have, in-house movement but it must have a major complication/movement (must be chronometer certified like Rolex watches are). Mechanical watches required & no Quartz. No such thing as affordable High End. Price starts at $5,000.


----------



## Souljer (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.


GaryF said:


> It's funny but this thread in which everyone is struggling to define "high-end" underlines the futility of trying to group watches in this way. It's much like the term "affordable" in that you really need a very specific context in order to make a judgement.
> I think that, ultimately, it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things and getting hung up on a precise definition, amid all the contradictions, is pointless. We all know roughly if a particular watch could be considered "high end" for the purposes of inclusion in this forum. No one seems to be putting their Seiko 5 up for discussion.
> 
> I always feel a little sad when people seem to make a purchase decision (or advising someone who is) based on which of several brands is considered to be "higher end". Maybe, as general rule, we should be judging watches purely by how much we like them and forget about where they stand on some arbitrary, inconsistent scale of prestige.


I agree with most of that.
I think this can be done if the criteria are based on honest points of quality and value rather than just a name brand or how expensive it is. If people are judging things based on what they think is impressive, who they are competing with or what is expensive to them, then you are right, it is impossible to agree since everyone has a personal, and thus different scale. This is why I said that price and how many gems are imbedded really should have nothing to do with it. Otherwise 'high-end' simply means expensive and has nothing to do with actual quality and accuracy, which to me should be the heart & soul of the term 'High-End'. A high-end mechanical watch should be as accurate as a quartz watch, maybe even more accurate. However instead of being stamped out of plastic in a factory at the rate of hundreds a day, and running off a battery, it was made by highly skilled craftsmen and women who can achieve that level of perfection if given the time. High-end watches are not afraid to compete against quartz. Any time anywhere. Because they truly are the best in the world.

So there is no need to make a special rule disqualifying quartz. Let them all compete together. If quartz can meet the requirements why not let them be recognized for their work? Just look at the criteria and ask if most quartz meet the criteria. I don't know, because I'm not an expert, but do any quartz movements have high-end finishing that can compete with the mechanicals we are talking about? If not, then why do we need a 'no quartz' rule?



Ace X said:


> Does not have to have, in-house movement but it must have a major complication/movement (must be chronometer certified like Rolex watches are). Mechanical watches required & no Quartz. No such thing as affordable High End. Price starts at $5,000.


Everything is affordable to someone. This is why I said high-end should not have anything to do with price. If it's all about the money, then even a low quality watch can be made 'high-end' by simply adding enough diamonds. Is that correct?

Here is a video that sort of puts things in an insane perspective. $5000. is not affordable? That's downright cheap! 
As a matter of fact, flying by $1,000,000.00 in 6th position as they count down to the #1 position, it's practically free! b-)
Top 10 Most Expensive Watches - YouTube

Watch and enjoy the insanity. Are they expensive? Just about anyone would say "Yes". Are they really all super high quality movements? 
I don't know, you tell me what you think.

I'm saying that if they can't fulfill criteria number 1: Super accurate and reliable. Then they are not high-end watches. They are simply very fancy and expensive (still understandably in some cases -d) considering the precious materials used).


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

Souljer said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply.
> 
> Everything is affordable to someone. This is why I said high-end should not have anything to do with price. If it's all about the money, *then even a low quality watch can be made 'high-end' by simply adding enough diamonds*.* Is that correct?*


no!!,in fact most high end watches does not contain any diamonds.


----------



## Souljer (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi,



Dancing Fire said:


> no!!,in fact most high end watches does not contain any diamonds.


 :-d That's funny! 
Yes I know. I was simply trying to point out that expensive does not equal high-end.

In the video I posted above, there is a watch that costs millions of dollars with only hour and minute hands. However the whole watch is covered in diamonds. Is the movement anything special? Is the movement average but an in-house custom movement? Any special complications? Not that I saw. However it is covered in diamonds and is thus very expensive. I don't think I would catagorize it as a high-end watch, even if it's a very good and accurate movement.

By the way, a lot of people have mentioned complications and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on what is a minor or major complication. Day & Date, Alarm, Chronograph, Second Time Zone, etc.? Why would Day & Date not be a sufficient complication?

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate you sharing your experiences.


----------



## WUSWIS (Aug 14, 2012)

In my opinion, price is a factor however it should not consider items like diamonds or gems. The consideration on price should be made on the movement, case, finishing and so on. Putting already market-valuable items such as diamonds should be discounted from the consideration.


----------



## omega1234 (May 17, 2012)

WUSWIS said:


> In my opinion, price is a factor however it should not consider items like diamonds or gems. The consideration on price should be made on the movement, case, finishing and so on. Putting already market-valuable items such as diamonds should be discounted from the consideration.


The problem with judging quality by price is that there are quartz Tags that cost more than a vintage Patek or my El Primero.


----------



## WUSWIS (Aug 14, 2012)

omega1234 said:


> The problem with judging quality by price is that there are quartz Tags that cost more than a vintage Patek or my El Primero.


Oh I don't mean to say price is the sole factor. However, I believe there's no such thing as affordable high end. Hublot can make a Big Bang for 20k and I still won't think it's high end. JLC can make a nice piece for 7k and I'll rate it so. Hope you get the idea.


----------



## Souljer (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi,

Yes, another issue to consider. This is more evidence why price should not be considered for anything other than how much it costs or how effective the brand's marketing is ;-). An average watch (quartz or mechanical) could simply be marked at a higher price than another watch that is actually of a higher quality. High-End watches do not have to be the most expensive watches, and while they are not usually the cheapest, this implies a higher value (not cost). Which, now that I think about it, I'm not surprised at and I should expect better value. That's one reason they are high-end; they are really great watches; accurate, beautiful, reliable. Made to the highest quality standards possible.

Quality is independent from price or precious materials (gold, platinum, gems, etc.), IF you want 'High-End' to actually mean something relating to quality. 

In general, I find that basic guidelines tend to reveal themselves as truthful, honest, and useful if they do not require or allow exceptions to the rule. For example 1+2=3, no matter who, where, or what you are. There are no exceptions. Likewise, price should not be a factor, period. If you need to start making exceptions or concessions this indicates that the guideline is inaccurate, or somehow not correct, or the exception or agenda is incorrect and being imposed on what is otherwise a good guideline.

All I'm saying is that price is no indication of quality. Price + Quality = Value.
That's how I see it at least.


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

Two of the most common criteria being mentioned in this thread are price and the presence of an in-house movement and there's a good example of the futility of applying such specific criteria in a general way. An AP Royal Oak Jumbo may contain a (non in-house) JLC ultra-thin movement and yet cost much more than a JLC containing the same (now in-house) movement.
Should we worry about whether either is "high end" based on the price or the presence of an in-house movement in this case? 

Do we go by brand? A TH V4 or an Omega Central Tourbillon are, for my money, undoubtedly "high end" watches but but is a Tag Heuer F1 or quartz Aqua Terra?

As I said, I think that far too much effort is being put into hand-ringing over what constitutes "high end".


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

GaryF said:


> Two of the most common criteria being mentioned in this thread are price and the presence of an in-house movement and there's a good example of the futility of applying such specific criteria in a general way. An AP Royal Oak Jumbo may contain a (non in-house) JLC ultra-thin movement and yet cost much more than a JLC containing the same (now in-house) movement.
> Should we worry about whether either is "high end" based on the price or the presence of an in-house movement in this case?
> 
> Do we go by brand? A TH V4 or an Omega Central Tourbillon are, for my money, undoubtedly "high end" watches but but is a Tag Heuer F1 or quartz Aqua Terra?
> ...


And if that AP used an ETA 2892 instead of the lovely JLC caliber, is it still high end?


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Yes


RogerP said:


> And if that AP used an ETA 2892 instead of the lovely JLC caliber, is it still high end?


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

RogerP said:


> And if that AP used an ETA 2892 instead of the lovely JLC caliber, is it still high end?


i'll take the inhouse JLC over a re-modified ETA any day of the week.


----------



## Dancing Fire (Aug 16, 2011)

GaryF said:


> Two of the most common criteria being mentioned in this thread are price and the presence of an in-house movement and there's a good example of the futility of applying such specific criteria in a general way. An AP Royal Oak Jumbo may contain a (non in-house) JLC ultra-thin movement and yet cost much more than a JLC containing the same (now in-house) movement.
> Should we worry about whether either is "high end" based on the price or the presence of an in-house movement in this case?
> 
> Do we go by brand? A TH V4 or an Omega Central Tourbillon are, for my money, undoubtedly "high end" watches but *but is a Tag Heuer F1 or quartz Aqua Terra?
> ...


IMO...no sucha thing as a high end microchip.


----------



## Hector Fdez (Sep 1, 2012)

Just stumbled on this one. Good thread and great reading. I think it is all relative. I am sure that everyone that owns a nice watch feels it is their high end watch. Budgets dictate how high one want or can go.

Me, for example, own some very nice pieces, but the one that I consider my grail or high end watch, is my 2012 Steel, Romain Jerome Steampunk Titanic DNA. People who don't know the brand or care for it, may feel otherwise. But that is the beauty of individuality, who cares what others think, right 

At the end of the day, who can really say what a High End watch consist of? It is all a matter of opinion and individual preference. Of course, this is just my opinion 

H


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

If it falls under 'mil-spec', it is.


Dancing Fire said:


> IMO...no sucha thing as a high end microchip.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

So, you wouldn't consider H.Moser & Cie, high end?


Tracy476 said:


> A bit snobby of me, I guess, but I don't consider anything mass-produced to be high end. To me, expensive mass-produced watches--even those with in-house movements--are luxury watches. I reserve the term "high end" for hand-crafted watches with complications.


----------



## eliz (Apr 5, 2012)

Alright.. so the general consensus being passed through here revolves around 2 main factors to decide if a brand is indeed "high-end".

1.) Well decorated in-house movement.
2.) A certain price range.

Which leaves me with my next question. So based on the above criteria, is Nomos Glashuette considered a "high-end" brand?
Well, it ticks the boxes of well decorated in-house movement(s). (infact, they have 7 of them!) BUT.. when it comes to price, they range from the lowest priced at $1450USD all the way up to it's flagship model(Zurich Weltzeit) at $5760USD.

So now, what can we conclude?


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

Dancing Fire said:


> i'll take the inhouse JLC over a re-modified ETA any day of the week.


And twice on Sunday.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

Watchbreath said:


> So, you wouldn't consider H.Moser & Cie, high end?


It's certainly high end to me - though I can now be officially branded as "biased" on that issue.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

Tracy4766 said:


> _Just a small question. If budget was an issue, and I wanted to buy a reliable time piece (not necessarily in gold finish-I like stainless steel)_
> _what brand would I start with at the lower end of the market. Just so I can see what I'd be paying for._


A thread on high end watches seems a curious place in which to ask for a recommendation for a lower end piece. Might be a good question to ask in its own thread on the public forum, though. And it would definitely help to identify what the budget is andto give some general idea of what type of watch you are interetsed in - i.e. - what aesthetic and functional qualities appeal to you beyond reliability.

Roger


----------



## WUSWIS (Aug 14, 2012)

eliz said:


> Which leaves me with my next question. So based on the above criteria, is Nomos Glashuette considered a "high-end" brand?
> Well, it ticks the boxes of well decorated in-house movement(s). (infact, they have 7 of them!) BUT.. when it comes to price, they range from the lowest priced at $1450USD all the way up to it's flagship model(Zurich Weltzeit) at $5760USD.
> 
> So now, what can we conclude?


Nomos is honest, well made and well decorated. However, I'm afraid I won't rate it as high end. Being able to get one for 1000-2000 just isn't exclusive enough. Luxury for sure though. Price isn't the only factor but as I said, I don't believe in afforable high end. And yes I understand the concept of "affordable" is subjective.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

No, Thomas Presher uses a 2824 in most of his watches and he is high end.


eliz said:


> Alright.. so the general consensus being passed through here revolves around 2 main factors to decide if a brand is indeed "high-end".
> 
> 1.) Well decorated in-house movement.
> 2.) A certain price range.
> ...


----------



## Souljer (Aug 27, 2012)

Hi,


GaryF said:


> Two of the most common criteria being mentioned in this thread are price and the presence of an in-house movement and there's a good example of the futility of applying such specific criteria in a general way. An AP Royal Oak Jumbo may contain a (non in-house) JLC ultra-thin movement and yet cost much more than a JLC containing the same (now in-house) movement.
> Should we worry about whether either is "high end" based on the price or the presence of an in-house movement in this case?
> 
> Do we go by brand? A TH V4 or an Omega Central Tourbillon are, for my money, undoubtedly "high end" watches but but is a Tag Heuer F1 or quartz Aqua Terra?
> ...


Thanks for responding.
I don't think it's futile to have a general definition or list of guidelines of what High-End might imply. I do think that it will would be very difficult to have an absolute definition. I can't say I know enough about watches, movements, etc. to really understand what's so important about 'in-house' movements unless it's just a way to make the watch more exclusive; not every brand can buy it from ETA because ETA does not make it, for example. I can accept the idea, if not on that level, which seems a little shallow if it's a great and accurate movement, but instead on the level of it's a quality hand-made movement made somewhere (anywhere). I'm judging the movement on it's quality and accuracy not it's availability. It might be quite expensive because a lot of work goes into it, that's fine and reasonable.

I guess I don't see why a high-end watch needs to be exclusive or expensive. I thought high-end meant high quality and -because we're talking about watches- extremely accurate, with exceptional, above standard, finishing work. Now some say it should also be more than just hour and minutes. Okay, maybe it should have more complications too. I don't know. Is this a test on watchmaker's skills?

A watch I'm personally interested in getting next will probably be a JLC Alarm, maybe a Master Compressor Alarm - black face with steel case and bracelet. I wear black, grey and white a lot so a black and steel or silver watch goes better with me than gold and brown. Just personal preference. I've seen this watch on the used market for $4xxx. and up. While I've heard many good things about JLC and that even other brands have used their movements, that watch is probably not exclusive enough or expensive enough for some of you to qualify for your acceptance of 'high-end', but frankly, if you think price is important then you clearly don't know what's truly important.

I'm not wringing my hands over this. I find the whole discussion very interesting and I'm learning a lot.

Still waiting to hear what defines a minor complication and a major complication and whether a high-end watch should have some or not and why.

Thanks again. b-)


----------



## WUSWIS (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm not sure on the complication point. This might be a bonus and bring some watches into the "high end" realm but should not be a requirement.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

I definitely do not buy into the idea that complications define a high end watch. A Patek Calatrava is high end to me. Brand X with a Valjoux 775x chrono triple date moonphase likely isn't.

Roger


----------



## Jbock (Jan 18, 2013)

I think a better word to use would be "Prestige" over "High End" almost every single watch is High End to someone.

I think only a handful can really be put in the Prestige category.

Also for that person that asked for an affordable watch, and I am assuming you meant something with a swiss automatic movement, I don't think you can go wrong with looking at a Hamilton, its a great entry brand, and they look stylish.

But at the end of the day buy what looks good to you, not what people tell you looks good to you.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

In that case, Rolex would be #1 and it's hardly that.


Jbock said:


> I think a better word to use would be "Prestige" over "High End" almost every single watch is High End to someone.
> 
> I think only a handful can really be put in the Prestige category.
> 
> ...


----------



## systemcrasher (Aug 10, 2012)

There has been few threads regarding this topic in the past and I personally think it's very difficult topic to tackle... except for few established brands like PP, AP, ALS, VC, UN, JLC and so on, the definition of "high-end" gets bit grey when you come to companies like Rolex, Omega, Breitling, Zenith, Chopard...

A lot of watch brands make high end watch models that are usually created as limited edition watches or in low volumes but this does not make them a high end watch brand. Just because Tag Heuer made Monaco V4, that don't make TH a high end watch brand by any means...

For example, if Kia made a $300000 mid-engined supercar, don't make Kia a prestige car company (Much like Nissan and GTR - sure GTR is a supercar, but Nissan is not on par with Ferrari, Lamborghini or Aston Martin). And if Target made $5000 suit, that won't put Target in the same league as Prada or LV..

Like most consumer products, high-end brands consist of:
Brand Heritage / History.
Exclusivity - both low volumes and high price tag.
Innovation to drive the industry forward.
High quality finish and parts made and finished by hand. (Both external and internal)
Really bold or really conservative/classic designs. You won't find many models that are "halfway there" in terms of design.
And you won't see many (if any) advertisings for the high end watch brands (unless you are reading a specialised watch magazine).

I personally think history, price, exclusivity and quality of product all needs to be considered and this is hard to do with companies. This requires generalisation in an epic scale and that don't do nobody no good.


----------



## vysis (Sep 14, 2009)

This thread is fundamentally on the wrong track. Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario 1:


> 1) Timex introduces the "ultimate Timex".
> 2) Only one exists, it was made pretty hastily and in all accounts, a poorly made watch
> 3) The "Ultimate Timex" is sold only through Tiffanies at $1 Million. Naturally, no discounts.
> 
> ...


Conclusion: We can conclude price & exclusivity alone is not enough to warrant the "high-end" status

Scenario 2:


> 1) Patek Phillipe announces the Acquisition of Switzerland
> 2) Patek-Phillipe-Switzerland A.G. announces an exciting project where the entire population is forcibly conscripted to manufacture Calatravas.
> 3) Each citizen is given mandatory training and now each Swiss citizen is now a master watch maker of the HIGHEST calibre
> 
> ...


Conclusion: We can conclude that craftsmanship, pedigree and history alone does not warrants "high-end" status

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that objects like watches who's desirability is not directly correlated with its function, its not possible to use the term "high-end". That because the term "high-end" suggests you can judge the object on an 1 dimensional basis, such as "high-end" vs "low-end" purely based on performance.

A Patek Phillipe Calatrava has no compliations, but has Brand Value and is made out of gold. That's 3 dimensions right there. Is it low end or high-end? As I hopefully illustrated above, what gives a watch value lies in the combination of many elements, not a single dimension.

Therefore, the better qusetion to ask is "what are the elements that give a watch value"? But then you're asking "what is value" and at that point, you can no longer ask for a definition, instead you're looking at 4+ years of University education in Econ+Marketing since "value" is such a ephemeral and multifaceted concept

So yeah...


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

IMHO, High end is perception. Therefore is very difficult to have everybody in the same page, and to make it more difficult you have the bias factor. People that in their mind they paid an arm and a leg to buy their Rolex or Omega will want to push this watches to High End. 
There are brands that are hard to classify like for example IWC, their line is all over the place that is hard to say if they're Luxury or High end.

In my mind there is 7 brands that everybody (well, let's Say the majority) will say they are High end:

Patek Philippe
A. Lange & Söhne
Audemarus Piguet
Breguet
Jaeger LeCoultre
Vacheron Constantin
Ulysse Nardin

of course they are others like Girard Perregaux , Glashüte Original, Blancpain, Parmigiani etc....
but I just think they're not as known as the other ones. Of course that doesn't mean they don't have merits to be there, some may have more merit to be there than those listed but they're less known. So right there I am adding another variant that might disqualify my list altogether, because "The list is my perception". So there is no definitive answer, but I am just trying...


----------



## bravoecho (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm against labeling "brands" as "high end", models can be...


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

People perception = High End
Kiss


----------



## Bidle (Aug 5, 2006)

vysis said:


> A Patek Phillipe Calatrava has no compliations, but has Brand Value and is made out of gold. That's 3 dimensions right there. Is it low end or high-end? As I hopefully illustrated above, what gives a watch value lies in the combination of many elements, not a single dimension.


Don't forget the "high-end" finish of the movement and watch! ;-)


----------



## VRT (Jan 24, 2012)

GinGinD said:


> ...One reason we didn't define "high end" when creating this forum is that we knew opinions would vary quite a bit since it's pretty subjective.
> 
> Jeannie


What a good long lasting joke it was!

Who is the sponsor of this forum? Find the sponsor - whatever watches he makes/sales are "High End Watches" for the purpose of this forum. No more, no less!


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

High end is a word that describes relativity. High is only defined if there is something else that is "lower". You can think in terms of the words tall and short. A tall person is defined as soneone who is of greater height than say 75% of the rest of the population, therefore falling into the 25th percentile. In watches , what we are measuring is value, which boils down to price in monetary and economic terms. Everything else, exclusivity, in house, fine decorations, hand assembling, brand etc are all the factors that translate back into value, which theoretically can be in dollar terms. 
A brand can price themselves at any range, and make crappy watches that doesnt justify the price, but nobody will buy it and the brand will go bankrupt or unsustainable (think zenith before new ceo). The market will determine whether the price justifies the value and in the long term the price of watches will adjust accordingly to reflect true value by means of demand and supply.
The secondary market or grey market or AD discounts reflect more of this true price, as you can see some brands price themselves too high and are offered 30% off, whike some models from rolex or patek can fetch higher grey market prices than retail. 
In conclusion, my definition of high end is simply top 5 percentile of watches as defined by true price, true price being grey market or some call it "street price"which are prices after normal AD discount. Of course top 5% is arbitrary, you can put top 1% as well to be even more exclusive standards.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

What is a "normal AD discount"?


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

Normally *craftsmanship, pedigree and history* does constitute "high end" as this allows a brand to raise prices and the apparent desireability of a time piece (like Rolex).

It goes against the usual principles of economics to price an item well below the demand-price curve, unless the purpose is to destroy the competition. In a price war, products are often sold below cost and will incur massive losses for the company. It is a very unnatural phenomenon in economics.



vysis said:


> 1) Patek Phillipe announces the Acquisition of Switzerland
> 2) Patek-Phillipe-Switzerland A.G. announces an exciting project where the entire population is forcibly conscripted to manufacture Calatravas.
> 3) Each citizen is given mandatory training and now each Swiss citizen is now a master watch maker of the HIGHEST calibre
> 
> ...


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

Watchbreath said:


> What is a "normal AD discount"?


ranges between 5% to even 35 or 40%.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:-d 35 or 40, that means that the AD will 'jack-up' 15 to 20.


Crunchy said:


> ranges between 5% to even 35 or 40%.


----------

