# Definition of a fashion watch?



## IanC (Jul 3, 2010)

What is the definition of a fashion watch compared to a normal watch?


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

Interesting that you yourself categorize into fashion and normal watches. You must have an idea though.

Fashion imho is a more or less general term for the style and custom prevalent at a given time. Fashion watches do usually not pretend to be timeless timepieces or prestigious mechanical highlights. Fashion watches are made to fit with the Zeitgeist, with style and the latest designs in the filed of clothing, fashion though. 
However some fashion watches are high end those times (Chanel, Hermes) but imho they are still made to fit the line of fashion the fashion house is representing.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:roll: It's a term used by purist and snob wannabes.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

I think most of us go by the brand and its chosen image, and it doesn't have to involve snobbery...although it might for some people. 

Gucci sells a quartz watch for $500-1000. First off, we know that Gucci is a fashion brand so that's a tip off right there. But, if it weren't, we could still look at the comps. For the price, you can get an ETA automatic diver with 500+ meter water resistance. Therefore, we have to conclude that the Gucci is a fashion watch; a watch that is bought and sold strictly for it's aesthetic value. And this makes sense because there's no other reason someone would pay that kind of premium for what is otherwise a very basic watch. 

It gets a little hazier if dealing with say, an Omega running a basic ETA 2824 or something that could be had for much less money if not for the brand on the dial. Still, we'd probably say this is not a fashion watch because it is bringing enthusiast-level elements to the table. This is in contrast to my TAG F1, which has a respected watch making brand on the dial just like Omega, is expensive like Omega, but doesn't feature really any engineering of note. This TAG is a fashion watch. 

Then it gets really hazy at the lowest levels, near Fossil. Down here you have to look at how the brand or watch is marketed as there won't be comps which are signficantly different. Alpha would be a good example of a non-fashion watch in this range because their aim is to bring historically significant designs and mechanical movements to the super affordable segment. A non enthusiast wouldn't care a lick about that, nor would they even know about Alpha to begin with.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

Fashion watch for me denotes something over the top deemed superficial, such as excessive bling or some "hey look at me" quality, which is the fast food equivalent of a more classic substantial design. Fast burn vs. slow burn in longevity of appeal.

Where it gets tricky is when you pay a substantial amount of money for the brand name rather than an increase in quantifiable quality or technological innovation. At that point it becomes a matter of judging the aesthetics of the watch and rewarding the manufacturer for design brilliance, which, while subjective, is expressed by its continuing ability to delight and satisfy, and because of that, raises design as an attribute equal to if not still higher than technological innovation in ability to bring lasting pleasure.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Would that make Patek Philippe a "fashion brand" with the '24' and Omega
with the 'Constellation My Choice'?


midshipman01 said:


> I think most of us go by the brand and its chosen image, and it doesn't have to involve snobbery...although it might for some people.
> 
> Gucci sells a quartz watch for $500-1000. First off, we know that Gucci is a fashion brand so that's a tip off right there. But, if it weren't, we could still look at the comps. For the price, you can get an ETA automatic diver with 500+ meter water resistance. Therefore, we have to conclude that the Gucci is a fashion watch; a watch that is bought and sold strictly for it's aesthetic value. And this makes sense because there's no other reason someone would pay that kind of premium for what is otherwise a very basic watch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:-s Like the Vacheron Constantin - Malte Ladies Pave, X25G4977?


Sean779 said:


> Fashion watch for me denotes something over the top deemed superficial, such as excessive bling or some "hey look at me" quality, which is the fast food equivalent of a more classic substantial design. Fast burn vs. slow burn in longevity of appeal.
> 
> Where it gets tricky is when you pay a substantial amount of money for the brand name rather than an increase in quantifiable quality or technological innovation. At that point it becomes a matter of judging the aesthetics of the watch and rewarding the manufacturer for design brilliance, which, while subjective, is expressed by its continuing ability to delight and satisfy, and because of that, raises design as an attribute equal to if not still higher than technological innovation in ability to bring lasting pleasure.


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

Hard to argue with Watchbreath.

I think some are over thinking it. Me, I personally believe that fashion watches has to come from a brand with a fashion house, ie: LV, Chanel, Dior, Burberry, etc... 

There are some exceptions of course that fall in more than one category, such as Cartier, which I see as both a fashion watch and a high-end watchmaker; Mostly because of the jewelry they also produce but they do have their history as well.

Then there's some brands like Fossil, who maybe a bit forward when it comes to design, constantly changing but I see them more as low-tier watchmaker than a fashion brand.

So to me, to make it simple, as long as the brand makes clothes/shoes first before watches, or at least consider their watches as a secondary, I say they are a fashion watch. Again, there are some exceptions here and there but that is just to generalize things. 

I have no hate for fashion watches though, don't get me wrong, I have 2 Burberry and a Chanel J12 and used to own 3 Gucci watches but I have no shame in admitting that they are fashion watches that I did pay a few bucks for the name, although I do consider it paying for the style/design more than the name since there really wasn't an alternative to the look of the watch those brands offered and I do not care much for the movement unless it hits a certain amount, as long as it is robust and reliable.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

NightScar said:


> I think some are over thinking it. Me, I personally believe that fashion watches has to come from a brand with a fashion house, ie: LV, Chanel, Dior, Burberry, etc...


I don't think we're overthinking it, I think we're trying to get beyond the obvious: that a fashion watch comes from a fashion house .


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

But that is just it, you can't really quantify everything into every little things. Like midship saying the F1 is a fashion watch because it is of a certain price range and has quartz. So if Gucci offered an automatic watch, which they do, for a certain amount they stop becoming a fashion watch? I mean other watch companies like Tissot or Oris offers the same price or more for practically the same movement inside the watch, what keeps them from not becoming a fashion watch if Gucci is still considered a fashion watch with the same characteristics? Does that make sense? Felt like a babbling on that one. :-d

I just don't think we need to put too much definition or over analyze it as such since some will always find a loophole that will say otherwise and it will be a never ending discussion that will just going around in circles. The simpler, the better. :-!


----------



## Movado (Aug 2, 2010)

To me a fashion watch is a watch that would make it into a magazine article, as an example "Our current obsessions: oversized watches" (in a fashion magazine). The current watch that I am wearing is photographed with the model on the Coach.com web site on the watches page. It isn't a traditional women's watch look, but it's a FAD. So I guess, a fashion watch, meaning not a classical style, but a watch that fits the current fad (and might go out of style 6 months from now). At least that's how other fashion forward accessories and clothes are like. Some things stay in style a little longer than others though.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

Watchbreath said:


> Would that make Patek Philippe a "fashion brand" with the '24' and Omega
> with the 'Constellation My Choice'?


You're twisting my words. I didn't say that TAG was a "fashion brand" because they make the F1. I said they make *a *fashion watch, the F1. So, the answer to your question is no, Patek is not a fashion brand. But yes, the 24 is a fashion watch.

The definition, which I decided to explain at length, is any watch whose price is not in line with the engineering involved. Another way to look at it is...would your average person decide to buy this watch for any reason besides looks or brand cache? The Patek 24...the answer is no. So it is a fashion watch. The $20 quartz at the mall? Also, no. So it is a fashion watch. The Bernhardt Globemaster running a modified ETA automatic for less than $500? Now we've got a yes. Someone could be interested in this model for what it brings to the table on an engineering and value standpoint, so it is not a fashion watch.

Most watches are fashion watches. I would call a fashion watch normal, and a non-fashion watch abnormal. It isn't as simple as saying that a fashion house must only produce fashion watches and a "watchmaker" brand can only produce non-fashion watches. It doesn't make sense when you look at all the models available...such as the TAG F1 or this Patek. Every serious brand seems to have at least 1 or 2 fashion models in their lineup. Alternatively, Gucci's Swiss automatics (if this exists) may be fashionable, but don't necessarily have to be considered "only" fashion watches because they bring as much to the table as an Omega or similar for around the same price.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Gucci did have a manual wind Seven years ago, the 5600 (15630) powered by an ETA 7001. It was a sales flop. It was 40 x 7.5mm.


midshipman01 said:


> You're twisting my words. I didn't say that TAG was a "fashion brand" because they make the F1. I said they make *a *fashion watch, the F1. So, the answer to your question is no, Patek is not a fashion brand. But yes, the 24 is a fashion watch.
> 
> The definition, which I decided to explain at length, is any watch whose price is not in line with the engineering involved. Another way to look at it is...would your average person decide to buy this watch for any reason besides looks or brand cache? The Patek 24...the answer is no. So it is a fashion watch. The $20 quartz at the mall? Also, no. So it is a fashion watch. The Bernhardt Globemaster running a modified ETA automatic for less than $500? Now we've got a yes. Someone could be interested in this model for what it brings to the table on an engineering and value standpoint, so it is not a fashion watch.
> 
> Most watches are fashion watches. I would call a fashion watch normal, and a non-fashion watch abnormal. It isn't as simple as saying that a fashion house must only produce fashion watches and a "watchmaker" brand can only produce non-fashion watches. It doesn't make sense when you look at all the models available...such as the TAG F1 or this Patek. Every serious brand seems to have at least 1 or 2 fashion models in their lineup. Alternatively, Gucci's Swiss automatics (if this exists) may be fashionable, but don't necessarily have to be considered "only" fashion watches because they bring as much to the table as an Omega or similar for around the same price.


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

midshipman01 said:


> You're twisting my words. I didn't say that TAG was a "fashion brand" because they make the F1. I said they make *a *fashion watch, the F1. So, the answer to your question is no, Patek is not a fashion brand. But yes, the 24 is a fashion watch.
> 
> The definition, which I decided to explain at length, is any watch whose price is not in line with the engineering involved. Another way to look at it is...would your average person decide to buy this watch for any reason besides looks or brand cache? The Patek 24...the answer is no. So it is a fashion watch. The $20 quartz at the mall? Also, no. So it is a fashion watch. The Bernhardt Globemaster running a modified ETA automatic for less than $500? Now we've got a yes. Someone could be interested in this model for what it brings to the table on an engineering and value standpoint, so it is not a fashion watch.
> 
> Most watches are fashion watches. I would call a fashion watch normal, and a non-fashion watch abnormal. It isn't as simple as saying that a fashion house must only produce fashion watches and a "watchmaker" brand can only produce non-fashion watches. It doesn't make sense when you look at all the models available...such as the TAG F1 or this Patek. Every serious brand seems to have at least 1 or 2 fashion models in their lineup. Alternatively, Gucci's Swiss automatics (if this exists) may be fashionable, but don't necessarily have to be considered "only" fashion watches because they bring as much to the table as an Omega or similar for around the same price.


The flaw in this explanation is, most watches out there would be categorized as a fashion watch if we judge it this way.

First: If a person by looks, yes it can be categorized as fashion but what if someone is buying a classic look, like a Rolex Submariner. Someone may love that look and design but that doesn't necessarily make it a fashion watch just because of that. Hell some people merely buy Rolex as a sign of success, some could care less if the movement or functions it has.

Second: The price to watch ratio, again a typical Rolex wouldn't offer something more technically advanced than a cheaper brand like Tag Heuer for example. They provide more prestige as I mentioned before and that reputation is what reflects the price, not engineering or innovation. Again, that doesn't make it a fashion watch.

Believe it or not, none of use are paying for the watch as a whole even at discount price. We pay for the name (no matter what brand), marketing (ie: the watch ambassadors, magazine ads, etc...), and a whole bunch of other intangible stuff. So by this logic, practically 99% of the watches out there would be a fashion watch. And I really have no problem with people thinking that way but I do not necessarily see it that way.

As for the F1, I never said you said Tag was a fashion watch, I said that you stated F1 was a fashion brand because of it's quartz movement at $500 but Omega offers a SMP Quartz for $2k, I do not necessarily see that being a fashion watch at all. Breitling also offer countless quartz in a higher price range but I do not consider it a fashion watch either. And no matter what anyone says, even if it is accurate to -1/+1 second a year, you are still not paying for that engineering at around $2,000-$3,000.

Again, that is just how I see it. I just simplify it that fashion watches equals watches from fashion houses or designer brands. I do not even consider most of them watchmakers at all since most of those guys have their stuff made, like Burberry & Michael Kors watches are made by Fossil.



Movado said:


> To me a fashion watch is a watch that would make it into a magazine article, as an example "Our current obsessions: oversized watches" (in a fashion magazine). The current watch that I am wearing is photographed with the model on the Coach.com web site on the watches page. It isn't a traditional women's watch look, but it's a FAD. So I guess, a fashion watch, meaning not a classical style, but a watch that fits the current fad (and might go out of style 6 months from now). At least that's how other fashion forward accessories and clothes are like. Some things stay in style a little longer than others though.


GQ features plenty of classic watches from Rolex to IWC, from Blancpain to Pams. Speaking of Pams, people have been saying that Pams and it's oversized look is a fad and it has been a good 10 years now and Pam is still kicking strong. So being in a magazine doesn't necessarily make it a fashion watch either.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

NightScar said:


> The flaw in this explanation is, most watches out there would be categorized as a fashion watch if we judge it this way.


There are a few problems in your interpretation



> First: If a person by looks, yes it can be categorized as fashion but what if someone is buying a classic look, like a Rolex Submariner. Someone may love that look and design but that doesn't necessarily make it a fashion watch just because of that. Hell some people merely buy Rolex as a sign of success, some could care less if the movement or functions it has.


You can like a way a non-fashion watch looks. My criteria also takes into account whether there are things besides looks or brand cache to draw in buyers. Every Rolex I know passes this test with at least a semi interesting movements and well, known, solid engineering...so there is no danger of Rolex being seen as a fashion brand no matter what one individual buyer may decide. Remember, I said whether or not an average reasonable buyer could find something redeeming about the watch besides looks. One dude buying strictly for looks doesn't change things.



> Second: The price to watch ratio, again a typical Rolex wouldn't offer something more technically advanced than a cheaper brand like Tag Heuer for example. They provide more prestige as I mentioned before and that reputation is what reflects the price, not engineering or innovation. Again, that doesn't make it a fashion watch.


The price to watch ratio idea only covers watches with little to no engineering involved. Basic quartzs that cost in the hundreds of dollars. Stuff like this. I took it a little further and added the second way of looking at it, which is, can you see anyone buying said watch for reasons other than looks? Again, Rolex passes this test despite being more expensive than rivals.



> Believe it or not, none of use are paying for the watch as a whole even at discount price. We pay for the name (no matter what brand), marketing (ie: the watch ambassadors, magazine ads, etc...), and a whole bunch of other intangible stuff. So by this logic, practically 99% of the watches out there would be a fashion watch. And I really have no problem with people thinking that way but I do not necessarily see it that way.


You're right, about 99% of the watches that exist are fashion watches. But, it's not so much about math and marketing as it is simple fact. Most people don't care about innovation or engineering and therefore the fashion watch market is massive and profitable.



> As for the F1, I never said you said Tag was a fashion watch, I said that you stated F1 was a fashion brand because of it's quartz movement at $500 but Omega offers a SMP Quartz for $2k, I do not necessarily see that being a fashion watch at all. Breitling also offer countless quartz in a higher price range but I do not consider it a fashion watch either. And no matter what anyone says, even if it is accurate to -1/+1 second a year, you are still not paying for that engineering at around $2,000-$3,000


.

The only way you can justifiably say that multi-thousand dollar quartzes from any high end brand are not fashion watches is if they either have an interesting quartz movement like a thermo comp or kinetic or spring drive...or, if the watch brings some other signficant features to the table...like say, if there was a Brietling Emergency Quartz version (maybe there is, I don't know). Otherwise, the only reason anyone would ever buy them is for looks or brand cache....and that's fashion.


----------



## Raza (Jul 21, 2010)

I consider a fashion watch to be a watch branded by a fashion house (i.e. Gucci, Lacoste, Armani) that is made by some other brand (i.e. Fossil).


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

midshipman01 said:


> You're right, about 99% of the watches that exist are fashion watches. But, it's not so much about math and marketing as it is simple fact. Most people don't care about innovation or engineering and therefore the fashion watch market is massive and profitable.


That is why I cannot agree with your definition because I do not believe 99% of watches are fashion watches. I wouldn't put Omega, Tag Heuer, Rolex, IWC, JLC, GO, VC, Patek, etc... as a fashion watch at all. If that were so, then what is the point if this separate forum?

Some people buy those for the look, no argument there, but I just can't see that as a reason for being a fashion watch. Some wants that classic look, some just like the styling but it still a classic look like the Sub in Rolex or VC's Patrimony or GO's Senator, etc... I could go on. So if I buy the Patrimony because I love the look, that makes it a fashion watch in your eyes. What if someone bought it for both looks and movement and reliability, would it still be a fashion watch?

It isn't simple because we can break these into little parts and one would fall into another category as easily. However, I think my definition is simple and


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

Some additional thoughts regarding what "fashion watch" means in this thread...

https://www.watchuseek.com/f386/so-what-exactly-fashion-watch-324777.html


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

Not sure there is a definition of a fashion watch; it's largely subjective based on what one does or does not like. One person's classic design is another person's fashion watch. It's not that there has to be a definition out there to be found. It doesn't have to exist nor I doubt can it be objectively created.


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

Sean779 said:


> Not sure there is a definition of a fashion watch; it's largely subjective based on what one does or does not like. One person's classic design is another person's fashion watch. It's not that there has to be a definition out there to be found. It doesn't have to exist nor I doubt can it be objectively created.


Amen to that.... BUT for the purpose of this forum, I think we do have to define, plus it's more fun that way. Just based on what watches are posted here, mostly designer/fashion brand watches (ie: Gucci, Burberry, Chanel, etc...), I think that gives a general definition of what a fashion watch is.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

NightScar said:


> Amen to that.... BUT for the purpose of this forum, I think we do have to define, plus it's more fun that way. Just based on what watches are posted here, mostly designer/fashion brand watches (ie: Gucci, Burberry, Chanel, etc...), I think that gives a general definition of what a fashion watch is.


:-d I know, it is more fun to try to define it...guess I was feeling tired at the thought of such a herculean task...


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

NightScar said:


> That is why I cannot agree with your definition because I do not believe 99% of watches are fashion watches. I wouldn't put Omega, Tag Heuer, Rolex, IWC, JLC, GO, VC, Patek, etc... as a fashion watch at all. If that were so, then what is the point if this separate forum?


If you think the watches from these high end brands comprise even 10% of the market, even 5% of the market, your judgement has been compromised by running in a watch enthusiast circle. For every Rolex, there are literally hundreds or even thousands of totally uninteresting quartz fashion watches being sold. Go to any mall. Every single store that sells clothes will sell some watches, and almost ALL of them will be fashion watches. Then, there might be one store...maybe 2 if it's a nice mall, that has 2 or 3 cases with maybe 20 or 30 high enders in them. It's just not even close.

I'll have to stand by my statement. And I don't know what's so difficult about the explanation I gave. When you look at a watch, what tells you that it's a fashion watch? I can't imagine the answer isn't something close to, "why would someone pay that much for that?", or "why would someone even want that?"

...and there you go. The reason you ask these questions is because these watches sell based on personal style. If there is a gap between inherent value and actual cost, you have to think fashion.


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

The thing is, you said 99% of the watches are fashion watches when that just isn't true. Sure you go to the mall and you find fashion watches (from fashion brands) outnumber true watches from watchmakers. No doubting that. But we are in a watch forum and I thought we were just talking about the vicinity of watches that were posted here at WUS. If you really want to extend it to the outside world, then I'd agree with you but not at a rate of 99 out of 100 watches in the mall are fashion watches. They may outnumber them by sheer volume but still, not 99%. BTW, when you said 99%, I was assuming you were saying 99% in the context of your definition that just because someone likes it for the look makes it a fashion watch right away, which isn't true to me. Like I said, a person who like how a Sub looks and knows absolutely nothing about the watch doesn't necessarily make the Sub a fashion watch.

Or the other fact that you said if the watch isn't worth what it provides in innovation or engineering. And with that definition, then yeah 99% of watches are fashion watches. Again, I can't agree with this because none of use are paying exactly what a watch is worth and some people believe what they pay for is worth it, even those who pay retail.



midshipman01 said:


> I'll have to stand by my statement. And I don't know what's so difficult about the explanation I gave. When you look at a watch, what tells you that it's a fashion watch? I can't imagine the answer isn't something close to, "why would someone pay that much for that?", or "why would someone even want that?"
> 
> ...and there you go. The reason you ask these questions is because these watches sell based on personal style. If there is a gap between inherent value and actual cost, you have to think fashion.


This reasoning is the almost the opposite of the majority of people on this forum. You ask WISers why they buy the watch; in the high-end forum, in public forum, in the German forum, in the Omega forum, etc.... and they will tell you it's because of the movement, the price, accuracy, the brand, features, history, prestige and of course they have to like the look too but then by your definition it will make all watches a fashion watch just because someone likes the look.

I don't know why it is so hard to understand that others may see or have a different definition. I have said and agreed several times that others may see it differently and that's cool. To me, I just can't accept that definition because to me not all watches are fashion watches and by your definition, all watches are.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

NightScar said:


> The thing is, you said 99% of the watches are fashion watches when that just isn't true. Sure you go to the mall and you find fashion watches (from fashion brands) outnumber true watches from watchmakers. No doubting that. But we are in a watch forum and I thought we were just talking about the vicinity of watches that were posted here at WUS. If you really want to extend it to the outside world, then I'd agree with you but not at a rate of 99 out of 100 watches in the mall are fashion watches. They may outnumber them by sheer volume but still, not 99%.


Well, obviously I was talking about all watches because I said 99% of watches are fashion watches. Why would I just be talking about WIS brands? It doesn't make sense, either with what I was saying, or in general because what we do here is not representative of the market.

And, I think you're splitting hairs if you're going to really disagree with 99%. Alright...maybe it's 94.5%. It doesn't really matter. The point is the same. Almost all watches are fashion watches, and non-fashion watches are rare.



> BTW, when you said 99%, I was assuming you were saying 99% in the context of your definition that just because someone likes it for the look makes it a fashion watch right away, which isn't true to me. Like I said, a person who like how a Sub looks and knows absolutely nothing about the watch doesn't necessarily make the Sub a fashion watch.


I don't know why you still think I'm saying "If someone buys for the look then it's a fashion watch". I've actually explicitly said that's not what I'm saying. Every one person has a different reason for buying and we're not going to base a definition on that one guy or girl. My point, again, is if a reasonable person (ie. any reasonable person, comprising ALL people who are reasonable) could find some valid reason to buy a watch besides the way it looks or the what the brand name means, then it is not a fashion watch. And, "because it's cheap" doesn't count. People buying dirt cheap watches will still pick the one they like the look of best, and really, that's about the only reason they'd buy it.



> Or the other fact that you said if the watch isn't worth what it provides in innovation or engineering. And with that definition, then yeah 99% of watches are fashion watches. Again, I can't agree with this because none of use are paying exactly what a watch is worth and some people believe what they pay for is worth it, even those who pay retail.


This is arguing in some theoretical realm where no company sells at a profit.

What you have to accept going into this is that certain watches from certain brands have an "inherent value" that is higher than others. Like say, you're never going to have to sell your Rolex for $100. It just ain't gonna happen. Therefore, we can say that Rolex-level watches have an inherent value that can then be compared to other watches around that level. So, a $5000 Rolex can be considered "priced competitive with it's engineering" because an Omega, Brietling, or other watch with equal inherent value offers a similar level of engineering at that price.

What would constitute a fashion watch here would be say...the Patek 24, which has a comparable inherent value, but whose basic quartz does not offer the same level of engineering for the cost. Now obviously, we're working in rough numbers here, but that makes sense because your mind doesn't know the exact cost of every watch, so you wouldn't be using exact numbers in your own "fashion or not" decision either.



> This reasoning is the almost the opposite of the majority of people on this forum. You ask WISers why they buy the watch; in the high-end forum, in public forum, in the German forum, in the Omega forum, etc.... and they will tell you it's because of the movement, the price, accuracy, the brand, features, history, prestige and of course they have to like the look too but then by your definition it will make all watches a fashion watch just because someone likes the look.


Again, to say that if one guy, or 10 guys, or a 100 guys buy for the look then it must be a fashion watch is a total misunderstanding of what I've said. A more accurate description might be..."Joe buys X watch because he likes the look, but he can justify the higher price because it's running an ETA 2824 rather than the Miyota of the cheaper model he was also considering". Bam! Not just fashion. Joe has likely bought a non-fashion watch.

Now, let's just say Joe has second thoughts, and decides that he likes the look of another watch better. It costs about the same, but it's an ETA G10 quartz. Joe pulls the trigger because he has always wanted that brand and the watch looks awesome. Joe has now likely bought a fashion watch.



> I don't know why it is so hard to understand that others may see or have a different definition. I have said and agreed several times that others may see it differently and that's cool. To me, I just can't accept that definition because to me not all watches are fashion watches and by your definition, all watches are.


Well, it doesn't bother me if you have a different definition, but you mostly seem to be concerned with punching holes in mine. So, I'm responding because I don't think you're seeing it the way I intended. It's not a problem by the way, I wouldn't have posted if I didn't want to discuss it.

Also, I should say that I don't think the process in your head is, or needs to be, this esoteric. What I really think I'm doing is trying to describe the variables that enter your mind in what is actually a split second decision. You know as soon as you see a watch and it's specs that it's a fashion watch or not. You just know. But, there's some criteria you're using there.


----------



## NightScar (Sep 4, 2008)

That is just too much detail and analysis though, I may have contributed to it, it was not my intention. Wasn't really trying to disprove you or punch holes in your statements, I was merely stating why I can't accept it as my definition but I really have no problem if that is how you define it. Sorry if it seemed like my responses were defensive or aggressive in anyway.

But the definition just doesn't work for me. Again, the reasoning that a person liking the watch for the one reason that they like the look just doesn't make it a fashion watch to me, simple as that. If a person buys a VC for the looks, it just doesn't make it a fashion watch to me, it simply means that the person likes how it looks. The same way that just because I think a Gucci watch is ugly doesn't stop it from becoming a fashion watch.

Again, I also agree that everyone can have their own definition but for the sake of the thread and the question, we need to generalize the definition. The OPs question seemed to be curious on what watches could or should be posted in this forum and by your definition, all the watches in the whole WUS can go in this forum, which I do not agree.


----------



## Sean779 (Jul 23, 2007)

NightScar said:


> That is just too much detail and analysis though, I may have contributed to it, it was not my intention. Wasn't really trying to disprove you or punch holes in your statements, I was merely stating why I can't accept it as my definition but I really have no problem if that is how you define it. Sorry if it seemed like my responses were defensive or aggressive in anyway.
> 
> But the definition just doesn't work for me. Again, the reasoning that a person liking the watch for the one reason that they like the look just doesn't make it a fashion watch to me, simple as that. If a person buys a VC for the looks, it just doesn't make it a fashion watch to me, it simply means that the person likes how it looks. The same way that just because I think a Gucci watch is ugly doesn't stop it from becoming a fashion watch.
> 
> Again, I also agree that everyone can have their own definition but for the sake of the thread and the question, we need to generalize the definition. The OPs question seemed to be curious on what watches could or should be posted in this forum and by your definition, all the watches in the whole WUS can go in this forum, which I do not agree.


I don't think it matters so much if they like it or not, which you would assume of anyone buying an expensive watch; what matters is if it has underlying tangible assets (tech. innovation, quality finishing etc.) that go beyond merely liking how it looks.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

NightScar said:


> But the definition just doesn't work for me. Again, the reasoning that a person liking the watch for the one reason that they like the look just doesn't make it a fashion watch to me, simple as that.


I totally agree. And the reason I agree is because I'm not making the point that you're describing here. At all.You seem to be really, really caught up on the idea that if a person would buy a watch for its looks then I consider it a fashion watch. I've attempted to reiterate, in every post, that this is not the case.

The important distiction between what I'm saying and what you've said here, is not that the person bought for the looks. The important part is whether or not they could justify the purchase using any other reason if they were required to. With a fashion watch, they will not be able to. If it is a higher priced watch, its cost will be too high relative to what else is available to consider it a good value. If it is a a lower priced watch, it will be so devoid of anything interesting that there would be no other reason to buy it than the way it looks. If they can justify it in some other way, then it is very likely a non-fashion watch. It will have some inherent value, either due to a movement or a case material or having been handmade, or _something_ else that makes its cost competitive with other non-fashion watches.

If I gave it one last attempt, I might say it this way. For something to be "art", it is generally believed that it can have no purpose other than itself. No function. Fashion watches, which would be close to "art" since that's pretty much what "fashion" describes, are about the same way. Their existence has no "purpose" besides the appreciation for the object itself. It cannot be a showcase of engineering, it cannot be an attempt at incredible accuracy, it cannot have any goal besides being itself. Therefore, if a fashion watch fits this description, we will either see a gap between the value of its tangible features and the actual cost, or it will not have any noteable features.

And indeed this fits with just about any example we want to use. I'm watching ShopNBC right now. Just a moment ago they were featuring a quartz, gold plated Invicta Pro Diver. Probably not the best example of a fashion watch, but it is a fashion watch nonetheless using my criteria. It's not real gold, the movement isn't interesting, it has no history, and it's factory made...but it costs $100. For $100, you can get say...a solar G-Shock with waveceptor. Very interesting, by contrast, and has a practical advantage. Yet, someone still might choose the Pro Diver because they simply must have it...but that will be the only reason. Then, the hosts trot out a Valjoux 7750 Subaqua 4 for just under $1k. Same brand, same over the top looks, but now we're in non-fashion. This Subaqua brings big water resistance, and a high quality movement to the table, all for a price comparable to what you'd pay for those features elsewhere. Maybe better. Someone might "just have to have it" as well, but they could also be buying in order to get into the movement, or because they dive. Easy.



> That is just too much detail and analysis though


It's really not, because I said pretty much the same thing in each section of the reply, just in different ways in attempt to clarify it. My original definition was a single sentence, and it still is. I also think that definition is actually what runs through your head when you look at a watch and make this decision for yourself.


----------



## midshipman01 (Dec 29, 2008)

Sean779 said:


> I don't think it matters so much if they like it or not, which you would assume of anyone buying an expensive watch; what matters is if it has underlying tangible assets (tech. innovation, quality finishing etc.) that go beyond merely liking how it looks.


Exactly


----------



## por44 (Dec 21, 2007)

For the most part - the watches for sale in an upscale department store


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2010)

> Gucci sells a quartz watch for $500-1000. First off, we know that Gucci is a fashion brand so that's a tip off right there. But, if it weren't, we could still look at the comps. For the price, you can get an ETA automatic diver with 500+ meter water resistance. Therefore, we have to conclude that the Gucci is a fashion watch; a watch that is bought and sold strictly for it's aesthetic value. And this makes sense because there's no other reason someone would pay that kind of premium for what is otherwise a very basic watch.


Well there are no shortage of luxury brands like Tag Heur selling 4 figure quartz watches in plain SS cases and bracelets...


----------



## dave38 (Mar 17, 2010)

A fashion watch is one that is marketed based more on how the watch looks as to opposed to what is does, how it works or what it is made out of. However everyone has a different taste so watch manufacturers are constantly trying to keep ahead of the market and design watches that they think fit the current trends, this summer it has been mainly white metal watches especially for ladies.


----------



## eveo (Aug 14, 2010)

Fashion watch: watches designed secondary to a fashion labels main line. (i.e., GUCCI most definitely did not start off by producing watches).


----------



## tfar (Apr 7, 2010)

Primary definition of a fashion watch has to be a combination of what Mike said at the beginning of the thread and what NightScar is trying to say all along:

- comes from a brand that doesn't primarily make watches
- does not have a very high quality movement or fancy complications
- the extra-ordinary looks are its main selling point combined with the name of the brand
- the design will be generally short-lived, as is fashion (Hermes and Chanel being exceptions but those are very high-end and conservative - compare with Diesel and Fossil)

Secondary definition of a fashion watch could be:

- is bought primarily for looks and prestige
- supposed to be extraordinary or to stand out
- innards are not horologically that special

In this category we can put anything from a Tag F1, over a Rolex President with Tiger pave dial (yuck!) to a Chopard Happy Diamonds.

All of these are watch brands only (well Chopard makes jewelry, too), are very well made, have decent to very good movements yet without special complications. The looks will be the deciding factor along with the prestige. Some people will find that wearing a Gucci watch is high prestige because frankly Gucci is the even bigger brand (as far as brands go) than Omega for instance. Others will simply buy a watch for its design and looks. Horological points escape them. They don't care. So why not buy a watch that fulfills a desire for a certain look?

We WIS look down on those people and those brands in general but, hey, I bet there are a bunch of people who have 20 fashion watches and love them just as much as a true WIS loves his collection of vintage El Primeros.

Till


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:-s Far too many WIS types consider Piaget a "fashion brand", so how 
do they fit in here?


tfar said:


> Primary definition of a fashion watch has to be a combination of what Mike said at the beginning of the thread and what NightScar is trying to say all along:
> 
> - comes from a brand that doesn't primarily make watches
> - does not have a very high quality movement or fancy complications
> ...


----------



## tfar (Apr 7, 2010)

Watchbreath said:


> :-s Far too many WIS types consider Piaget a "fashion brand", so how
> do they fit in here?


They don't know what they're talking about if they consider Piaget a fashion brand. :-d:-d:-d:-d:-d

Till


----------

