# More desirable brand than JLC?



## V10K+

Is there a watch brand more desirable than JLC? I ask this in this forum as I imagine JLC lovers have similar taste in watches. 

I imagine some people prefer Patek or Rolex over JLC? Is there any other major brand? I find myself preferring JLC over them but not sure what the mainstream WIS feels.

I noticed every few months of sitting on this website I upgrade from different brands: Rado to Cartier and now to JLC. I am curious as to what can possibly come next? When I got into watches I promised I would never buy expensive watches (under $500) - now I am having trouble keeping my collection under $20k :rodekaart


----------



## reverso68

V10K+ said:


> Is there a watch brand more desirable than JLC? I ask this in this forum as I imagine JLC lovers have similar taste in watches.
> 
> I imagine some people prefer Patek or Rolex over JLC? Is there any other major brand? I find myself preferring JLC over them but not sure what the mainstream WIS feels.
> 
> I noticed every few months of sitting on this website I upgrade from different brands: Rado to Cartier and now to JLC. I am curious as to what can possibly come next? When I got into watches I promised I would never buy expensive watches (under $500) - now I am having trouble keeping my collection under $20k :rodekaart


JLC and A. Lange & Sohne are my favorite brands


----------



## Omjlc

One of the main reasons I love JLC is because most of their models come in stainless steel. Glashutte Original is a good comparable brand. ALS and Patek are hard to compare given that they predominately produce gold cased watches.


----------



## sheon

For dress watches, VC, AP, H Moser & Cie, PP.

For sports, AP, PP.


----------



## GaryF

I kind of like watches, myself. A lot of brands make something I like. 
If you buy watches based on which brands you think are considered 'desirable', I think you'll be missing out on some wonderful and interesting timepieces.


----------



## V10K+

I agree I don't buy based on the brand but I have noticed that different brands have different styles/attitudes. Not many are catering to what I am looking for. Some are producing designs that are very old and nostalgic in nature but not very sexy or stylish from a modern day perspective. One thing I like about JLC is that they have designs which have that edge/style to them that makes them stand out. I haven't been able to find any other brand that draws me enough to want to spend $$$. 

I am considering buying another JLC but would love to know if I missing out on something else.


----------



## LHL

Some of the watches I own are Ulysse Nardin, RADO, Tag Heuer, Hublot, JLC, just to name a few. They all very in price and style. I like each one for their own reason but I do have to say that JLC is one of my favorites. I totally understand about wondering if you are missing out on anything else. I think that as watch enthusiasts, we are always looking to see what is currently out there and what is the next great thing. I have learned over the years that there will always be something that I may be missing out on but appreciate that I have been able to obtain some great time pieces as well.


V10K+ said:


> I agree I don't buy based on the brand but I have noticed that different brands have different styles/attitudes. Not many are catering to what I am looking for. Some are producing designs that are very old and nostalgic in nature but not very sexy or stylish from a modern day perspective. One thing I like about JLC is that they have designs which have that edge/style to them that makes them stand out. I haven't been able to find any other brand that draws me enough to want to spend $$$.
> 
> I am considering buying another JLC but would love to know if I missing out on something else.


----------



## Wolvesq

JLC is the strongest brand -- top to bottom -- at its price point. It's a proven company with a storied history and fantastic reputation. It consistently produces classy, well-designed watches. Glashutte Original is probably the closest in the same price range. It also produces some lovely pieces for the money. Grand Seiko also makes watches of comparable build quality to JLCs, and at a lower cost, though it has a limited line up. Patek and Lange, frankly, make even more impressive watches imo, but at a much higher price point.


----------



## Jonnyt5050

I don't know if I'd say it's more desirable but in my mind... probably as desirable would be IWC. The pilots & portuguese are fantastic.

But ALS and PP are a step above. The best of the best (at least according to opinions of people I've read & respect). But for where I am in my life, I don't think I'm quite ready for those regardless of whether I had funds for them. So if I saw 4 watches of JLC, IWC, ALS, PP.... I'd probably desire to put on JLC or IWC first as their designs are more to my taste. But I'd recognize that the ALS & PP are, in most respects, more desirable to WIS types.

Just my $.02.


----------



## Jeager

V10K+ said:


> Is there a watch brand more desirable than JLC? I ask this in this forum as I imagine JLC lovers have similar taste in watches.
> 
> I imagine some people prefer Patek or Rolex over JLC? Is there any other major brand? I find myself preferring JLC over them but not sure what the mainstream WIS feels.
> 
> I noticed every few months of sitting on this website I upgrade from different brands: Rado to Cartier and now to JLC. I am curious as to what can possibly come next? When I got into watches I promised I would never buy expensive watches (under $500) - now I am having trouble keeping my collection under $20k :rodekaart


No such thing. Case closed!


----------



## Vakane

Dollar per dollar.... Nothing comes close...

More expensive brands? Sure.... And JLc makes movements for most of them....

Think about that


----------



## V10K+

Wolvesq said:


> JLC is the strongest brand -- top to bottom -- at its price point. It's a proven company with a storied history and fantastic reputation. It consistently produces classy, well-designed watches. Glashutte Original is probably the closest in the same price range. It also produces some lovely pieces for the money. Grand Seiko also makes watches of comparable build quality to JLCs, and at a lower cost, though it has a limited line up. Patek and Lange, frankly, make even more impressive watches imo, but at a much higher price point.


Even if price isn't a concern (under $100k). I think JLC is the nicest mainstream manufacture. Pateks and Langes seem a bit old to me. JLC keeps things fresh.



Jonnyt5050 said:


> I don't know if I'd say it's more desirable but in my mind... probably as desirable would be IWC. The pilots & portuguese are fantastic.
> 
> But ALS and PP are a step above. The best of the best (at least according to opinions of people I've read & respect). But for where I am in my life, I don't think I'm quite ready for those regardless of whether I had funds for them. So if I saw 4 watches of JLC, IWC, ALS, PP.... I'd probably desire to put on JLC or IWC first as their designs are more to my taste. But I'd recognize that the ALS & PP are, in most respects, more desirable to WIS types.
> 
> Just my $.02.


I know most WIS guys prefer PPs and I like them for the pedigree associated with them but in terms of watch designs they aren't that pretty. I don't see what is so special about ALS.



Jeager said:


> No such thing. Case closed!





Vakane said:


> Dollar per dollar.... Nothing comes close...
> 
> More expensive brands? Sure.... And JLc makes movements for most of them....
> 
> Think about that


Thats what I have been thinking. I really like the movement in my Squadra.


----------



## hydrocarbon

Of course there are more "desirable" makers, though Jaeger LeCoutre has some very strong offerings and is one of the most horologically innovative _manufactures_ in existence. But there are better choices in some categories. For instance, they still struggle to design a decent-looking modern sports watch, and the unfortunate Richemont influence occasionally takes them into novelty-watch territory with some of the limited editions they've been producing in recent years.

Fortunately, those regrettable models don't constitute a large part of their production, and I really can't see them systematically messing up their entire range like their stablemate IWC has. While JLC may not be the "most desirable" manufacturer, they're certainly one of the most widely respected in the industry and among watch enthusiasts, mostly because they tend to focus on making quality and mostly tasteful original designs instead of obsessing about "branding" exercises.


----------



## Vinel

Very well said Hydrocarbon. couldn't agree more.


----------



## iinsic

reverso68 said:


> JLC and A. Lange & Sohne are my favorite brands


Same here. I want a Lange so badly I can taste it! o|


----------



## hpowders

Mistaken post.


----------



## eat1984

Perhaps somebody here can point me in the right direction...I have loved the JLC Reserva de Marche Q1488404 ever since I first saw it. I also am very impressed with Omega's newer 9300 caliber movement in the Seamaster Planet Ocean. I realize they are completely different styles and in a perfect world I would have both of them. However, at the moment, I can only afford one of them. I am less interested in the "prestige" and more concerned with the overall quality and durability of the movement. The current timepieces I have serve their purposes well (sporty/daily and dress) but I would like to add to the collection. Thank you all in advance for your input.


----------



## LHL

Do you already own an Omega or JLC? The reason that I am asking is because they are both nice time pieces and with Omegas 9300 movement you shouldn't have a problem. When it comes to great movements and longevity you can't go wrong with JLC. So if you already have an Omega and want to add to your collection I would say go with JLC or the other way around. Now if you have neither of these then in my opinion I would go with the JLC. I like there look better and after much research I believe that there movements are better and will last a long time without any issues.


----------



## iinsic

eat1984 said:


> Perhaps somebody here can point me in the right direction...I have loved the JLC Reserva de Marche Q1488404 ever since I first saw it. I also am very impressed with Omega's newer 9300 caliber movement in the Seamaster Planet Ocean. I realize they are completely different styles and in a perfect world I would have both of them. However, at the moment, I can only afford one of them. I am less interested in the "prestige" and more concerned with the overall quality and durability of the movement. The current timepieces I have serve their purposes well (sporty/daily and dress) but I would like to add to the collection. Thank you all in advance for your input.


I certainly appreciate the difficulty of having to choose between two watches you covet, but you essentially have told us you like both the Lincoln Navigator SUV and the Aston-Martin DB9 ... and can't decide which to purchase. Whilst both vehicles are luxuriously appointed, they are worlds apart in reputation and application.

Ditto for the JLC Reserve de Marche and the PO 9300 chrono. If you're a regular panelist on _Real Time With Bill Maher_, I'd recommend the former. If you're a contestant on _Roads Wars_, you might find the latter a better choice.

Seriously, only you can make the choice, especially given the paucity of information about your lifestyle, occupation and fashion style. Both are great watches, but "watches" is where the resemblance ends.


----------



## Cheylol

I think it all depends how you look at it or what you want from the watch.
My personal choice for high-end Brands would be, A.Lange, AP, JLC, Patek.
Amongst many other brands including the ones that I mentioned, you can't deny the fact that price point of JLC is undeniably charming the most.


----------



## eat1984

I recognize that I am comparing apples to oranges. I'm leaning more towards the JLC but I think the thing holding me back is my concern for its durability. I am more familiar with the Omega movement and understand that its purpose is a diving watch. That combined with the Silicon balancing spring makes me feel comfortable with its durability. My daily activities don't require anything special but I do find myself a little concerned with catching the timepiece on the corner of a wall or a table or something like that. For no good reason I just have this feeling that the JLC will be more sensitive to any regular use. Can anyone with a JLC speak to their experience with this?


----------



## fareastcoast

I don't abuse my JLC so it is hard to say for sure. But JLC does put its movements in watches meant to withstand some abuse (Navy Seal line, compressor extreme, etc) so I would suspect the movements are built to be rather durable.


----------



## LHL

I can only speak for myself and the JLC that I wear almost every day. I do not work inside a nice office. I spend most of my time outside going back and forth doing many activities. I have not had any problems with my watch both in aesthetics or mechanical. In my case I have to say I can depend more on my JLC than most any of my other time pieces because of its accuracy. My watch seems to keep time very well compared to some of my others that get ahead or behind and have to be adjusting the time weekly to make sure I stay on track of things throughout the day. Before the purchase of my JLC, I knew its reputation but I really didn't know much about it. I was aware of the more common brand and was a little worried that the JLC would not hold up to the standard of many claims. I eventually did my research to better know the brand and now that I actually own a JLC I can actually say that it's a wonderful brand that creates not only nice looking but very well built time pieces. In any case this is just my personal experience and ultimately you will have to decide for yourself what will work better for you. Good luck with your decision.


----------



## eat1984

LHL, Thank you for your insight. That is exactly the experience I was looking to hear about. Now the hard part, find the watch.


----------



## dak_la

eat1984 said:


> LHL, Thank you for your insight. That is exactly the experience I was looking to hear about. Now the hard part, find the watch.


Hi Eat1984,

I think you will find these two links useful:

Jaeger-LeCoultre Discussion Forum: In search of the perfect movement, Autotractor first used in Home Time and Dualmatic!

TimeZone : Public Forum » Finally reached the limit of the JLC Master Compressor Dualmatic

Daniel


----------



## eat1984

Great links! Thank you for the info.

-Eric


----------



## JLC1973

When I first bought my Master RDM I thought of it as being a delicate watch and treated it as such. But over the years it has taken a few hits and remains as accurate as ever. I don't worry about it so much anymore. My Master Compressor is a bit newer so I'm babying that one at the moment even if I know that I don't have to.


----------



## agong

JLC and Zenith are 2 true watch manufacture with unbeatable value.


----------



## JHG722

Kari Voutilainen


----------



## MichaelKG

What does one mean by more desirable? As in: "Must have watch"? A hard to find watch/limited release which makes it more special?

I like the watches A Langhe Sohne make but they don't move me, I don't see myself wearing one because they don't fit me. It just isn't my style. If I had 100 million I still wouldn't buy one. So what does desirability mean, what other watch lovers or watch snobs and even connaisseurs say is a must have and you have to follow?

I don't even think you can compare JLC to ALS, such a wide variety in watches.



V10K+ said:


> I am curious as to what can possibly come next? When I got into watches I promised I would never buy expensive watches (under $500) - now I am having trouble keeping my collection under $20k :rodekaart


Why should there be something that can come next? Does it need to be more expensive/more exclusive/more high end?


----------



## heb

I think from an historical perspective, they are right at the top, or very close. Back in the day, some of today's most powerful watch companies used JLC (or just LC) movements. The only one I can remember at the moment is IWC. JLC made the movements for that company's most important pilot watches.


heb


----------



## V10K+

MichaelKG said:


> What does one mean by more desirable? As in: "Must have watch"? A hard to find watch/limited release which makes it more special?
> 
> I like the watches A Langhe Sohne make but they don't move me, I don't see myself wearing one because they don't fit me. It just isn't my style. If I had 100 million I still wouldn't buy one. So what does desirability mean, what other watch lovers or watch snobs and even connaisseurs say is a must have and you have to follow?
> 
> I don't even think you can compare JLC to ALS, such a wide variety in watches.
> 
> Why should there be something that can come next? Does it need to be more expensive/more exclusive/more high end?


I have been relatively satiated since I purchased my grail (JLC Squadra Reverso Hometime Black) although I don't wear it as often as I thought I would. I like to match my watch to my apparel and unless I am a bit dressy I don't usually put on the JLC. In certain dressy clothes I wear the Cartier Tank SS as it seems to better accent my attire white/off white.

I would like to find another watch that moves me but it would have to be for a certain type of clothing I wear. I have been mostly wearing my Rado V10K of late and I find it interesting as it was the piece that was most plain looking of my watches. I through my Rado Sintra matte black from time to time but not as fond of it now although the dial is near impervious to scratches. My Rado Ceramica and Sintra Platinum are collecting dust but I don't have the heart to sell them. Since I am fixated on rectangular watches I haven't found anything striking after the Squadra and have stopped searching for the time being. I would like to buy another JLC but it needs to really move me to spend big bucks. I lost interest in Pateks and don't care for A. Lange. Anytime I start considering a regular reverso they feel too small and feminine when compared to the Squadra.


----------



## Monocrom

From an overall standpoint, tough to do better than JLC for a watch that isn't an over-the-top example of something that would never be worn outside.


----------



## vysis

As somebody who tried pretty hard to like JLC watches but ultimately went with another brand, I think I have some insight into this.

*The biggest problem with JLC? Their watches are boring and stay boring unless you're dealing with haute horology. *Before you jump on me, let me explain:

JLC excels in haute horology (true to their reputation as a movement maker). The Hybris Mechanicas are nothing short of breath taking, but they are also 2.5 MILLION dollars. The Tourbillons are also amazing, $70k. The Duometre is quite striking... $30k

When you're talking about watches for mere mortals, such as the 5k-15k (I realize the irony in that statement), JLC watches are simply... boring. Their designs are boring, their functions are boring and the movements are boring. They really have very little going for them except for the "Halo" surrounding the brand name that's passed down from the Haute Horology creations.

*Are there more desirable brands? I would argue that:*

at 5k, I'd rather get an Omega/Zenith. (At this price point, you're getting the bare minimum from JLC, whilst you can get some quite iconic and feature-rich watches from Omega/Zenith)

at 10k, I'd rather get an IWC . (I'm biased since I own an IWC watch... but I think it speaks volumes that I ultimately chose the IWC at the dealer over the JLC. It ultimately came down to IWC simply offered a more _interesting _watch with a more interesting movement and a better aesthetic design (5001 for those curious))

at 15k, I'd rather get a AP/Breguet/Blancpain (to be honest, other than the Perpectual Calendary at 20k, JLC doesn't really make many watches in this range).

Anywhere from 20-50k, ALS and PP kinda dominates with sheer brand name.

But once we get to 50K+, I think JLC is actually the strongest watch maker out there. ALS and PP's ability to manufacture truly complicated watches that also look good is suspect at best. On the other hand, JLC's haute horology watches are all fantastically unique and wonderfully interesting.

So to sum up my point? I believe JLC is a great but not excellent watch maker anywhere from 5k-50k, but their true strengths lie in their stupidly expensive watches.

I understand why people like JLC, though I believe some of the love on this forum is blind or may be influenced by how enamored they are with JLC's masterpiece creations, and less the actual qualities of the watches themselves (don't get me wrong, they are still excellent watches, just not the "***** watch(s)" everybody praises them to be)


----------



## V10K+

vysis: Very thought out explanation. I would agree with some of your conclusions although I came with the opposite set. One thing I like about JLC is that they aren't as boring as all the other brands mentioned. To me JLC is avant garde whereas the others are very old and plain. I do like the idea of traditional iconic watches with a fresh and slight modern twist. I don't see any other company doing that. Most of their designs seem dated and old. I have tried hard to like all the brands you mentioned as well as Rolex. 

I would also agree that at the ridiculous price points JLC makes some super fine watches. But personally I think I would go with something more custom if I was going to spend that kind of money (which will NEVER happen).


----------



## LHL

V10k+, I agree with you. I too think many of the other brands are a bit dated and boring. I tried on many including the once mentioned and they did nothing for me. The quality on some of them didn't look good ether. By the way, l like the V10k. Looks simple yet very cool.


----------



## PanzerOrange

best watch for the money? Nomos Glashutte.

best entry-level luxury brand watch? I am torn between Zenith and Omega, with JLC, GO and Rolex in the top 5.

best mid-tier luxury brand watch and above? JLC is probably top 3, the competition from ALS and PP is way too strong.


----------



## sheon

I have a Grand Seiko, a Girard-Perregaux and a JLC, and among the three, I'm starting to like my JLC (the master control) most. It's the most accurate of the three. As someone else said, I end up adjusting it least. Its aesthetics are also very 'me'. And its movement is the nicest. It also happens to be my plainest, most boring watch. 

PP, AP, VC et al. are more 'desirable' to me possibly due to marketing and possibly due to the Veblen good phenomenon. However, I don't own one so I can't comment on them vs JLC objectively. If I do buy one, I'll report back....:-d


----------



## GaryF

vysis said:


> I understand why people like JLC, though I believe some of the love on this forum is blind or may be influenced by how enamored they are with JLC's masterpiece creations, and less the actual qualities of the watches themselves


Well, that's an opinion you're entitled too (even if it is a little patronising) but, what you call "boring", many of the rest of us would call "subtle", "elegant", "unpretentious" or "classic".


----------



## vysis

GaryF said:


> Well, that's an opinion you're entitled too (even if it is a little patronising) but, what you call "boring", many of the rest of us would call "subtle", "elegant", "unpretentious" or "classic".


well, I can understand where you're coming from. But at what point does "subtle", "elegant", "unpretentious" and "classic" differentiate








and









other than a ~$5000 price difference? There are many elegant and subtle watches out there with very nice quality (afterall, it's very easy to make a clean, minimal design), so what makes JLC superior to these watches?

You could say history and brand-name, but at that point, you are literally buying for the JLC Brand name, not for any intrinsic quality of the watch itself. (unlike say for a Patek Calatrava, where at least its an iconic model with history intrinsic to the Calatrava and beyond the Patek name)


----------



## GaryF

> You could say history and brand-name, but at that point, you are literally buying for the JLC Brand name, not for any intrinsic quality of the watch itself. (unlike say for a Patek Calatrava, where at least its an iconic model with history intrinsic to the Calatrava and beyond the Patek name)


You don't regard a Reverso or a Memovox as iconic?

Nice Nomos btw but it really looks nothing like the JLC. It's odd that you chose that as an example of how JLC watches are uninteresting when you are putting forward IWC as a brand that is more "interesting". The Nomos in the picture has at least as much visually in common with a Portofino as it does with the watch you posted.


----------



## vysis

GaryF said:


> You don't regard a Reverso or a Memovox as iconic?
> 
> Nice Nomos btw but it really looks nothing like the JLC. It's odd that you chose that as an example of how JLC watches are uninteresting when you are putting forward IWC as a brand that is more "interesting". The Nomos in the picture has at least as much visually in common with a Portofino as it does with the watch you posted.


You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that what you would regard as elegant, understated and classic is not something that is unique to JLC. If you want a elegant, understated and classic watch, many watch makers offer these designs. That's why its "boring", there's nothing unique about JLC that's intrinsic to the watch itself.

Sure you could say that "the JLC brandname is value in itself". But at that point, what differentiates a JLC buyer and a Rolex buyer? They're both buying purely for a brand name, its just JLC tends to be more 'hipster and underground'.


----------



## Monocrom

vysis said:


> Sure you could say that "the JLC brandname is value in itself". But at that point, what differentiates a JLC buyer and a Rolex buyer? They're both buying purely for a brand name, its just JLC tends to be more 'hipster . . .


Living in the mecca of the hipster scene, I've honestly never seen an anorexic dude with a messenger bag, Converse sneakers, and a pair of skinny jeans designed to be worn by a 14 year-old girl; walking around with a JLC on his wrist. Doubtful they could pull it off in an ironic way while sipping gourmet coffee purchased anyplace *but* Starbucks.


----------



## vysis

Monocrom said:


> Living in the mecca of the hipster scene, I've honestly never seen an anorexic dude with a messenger bag, Converse sneakers, and a pair of skinny jeans designed to be worn by a 14 year-old girl; walking around with a JLC on his wrist. Doubtful they could pull it off in an ironic way while sipping gourmet coffee purchased anyplace *but* Starbucks.


By hipster, I don't mean hipsters wear it. I mean that people like it (JLC) because its "indie" and "undiscovered", because its "exclusive" since nobody except the "in-crowd" knows about it.

I don't want to say its a snob-factor, because that has the wrong connotation and I don't believe theres anything wrong with liking JLC (i quite like JLC myself, just not their low-mid end watches). But I think you can get at what I'm trying to say.


----------



## eat1984

After reading all of these comments I further appreciate why I use this forum. For the most part, people seem to be able to RESPECTFULLY disagree. Rarely do you find that these days and even more rare to find it on the internet where people can hide behind a screen name and a keyboard. 

Personally, I have always loved the look of the JLC Master Reserve De Marche. Simple, classic, elegant and understated, in my opinion. I'm curious to hear others opinions too. Unfortunately, it is too small to look good on my wrist.


----------



## GaryF

vysis said:


> You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that what you would regard as elegant, understated and classic is not something that is unique to JLC. If you want a elegant, understated and classic watch, many watch makers offer these designs. That's why its "boring", there's nothing unique about JLC that's intrinsic to the watch itself.
> 
> Sure you could say that "the JLC brandname is value in itself". But at that point, what differentiates a JLC buyer and a Rolex buyer? They're both buying purely for a brand name, its just JLC tends to be more 'hipster and underground'.


I haven't missed your point. I just happen to disagree with it.

If I wanted an inelegant, overblown fashion accessory, I'd find myself equally well catered for and as bored as you are by "elegant, understated classics". "Boring" is not what a JLC is. It's your reaction to it.



> Sure you could say that "the JLC brandname is value in itself".


I haven't said that and nor has anyone else here. It is a straw man argument. Certainly the fact that JLC are acknowledged pretty much universally in horology as being makers of top quality movements and, indeed, watches will have an effect on how the brand is perceived but it's hardly chicken and egg, is it? The reputation clearly followed the watches and that is nothing like saying "the JLC brandname is value in itself".

It seems to me that there are two broad responses when finding oneself in the position of disagreeing with the majority on this question. The first is to ask "Is there something I'm missing? Everyone else seems to love this stuff. Is it something I don't get or maybe just a question of individual taste?"

The other, and this might sound familiar, is to theorise that everyone else has fallen for the branding while you- perhaps because of your greater perception -have managed to avoid that and seen the product for the dull, unimaginative thing that is.

Now, you've gone the latter route and there's nothing wrong with that. You might even be right. We may just all be buying boring, uninteresting watches because we've been hoodwinked by the glamour which has somehow become attached to the brand. But, all the same, I'd give the former route a bit of consideration, too, if I were you.


----------



## vysis

GaryF said:


> I haven't missed your point. I just happen to disagree with it.


You clearly did and I'll illustrate exactly how.

Name 3 models from JLC that retails up to 15k which are intrinsically _interesting _by themselves without the JLC brand-name.

For ex. I'll give you the Reverso off the bat, that's definitely a neat concept and design that no other house does.

You've already mentioned the Memovox, I guess some people will regard the fact that it's the first alarm as interesting... but that's the only factor. There are many alarm watches out there with virtually identical designs that's much cheaper.


----------



## dak_la

vysis said:


> You clearly did and I'll illustrate exactly how.
> 
> Name 3 models from JLC that retails up to 15k which are intrinsically _interesting _by themselves without the JLC brand-name.
> 
> For ex. I'll give you the Reverso off the bat, that's definitely a neat concept and design that no other house does.
> 
> You've already mentioned the Memovox, I guess some people will regard the fact that it's the first alarm as interesting... but that's the only factor. There are many alarm watches out there with virtually identical designs that's much cheaper.


I think you have missed a point that Gary made earlier. Quoting from Gary's post: "Certainly the fact that JLC are acknowledged pretty much universally in horology as being makers of top quality movements and, indeed, watches will have an effect on how the brand is perceived but it's hardly chicken and egg, is it? The reputation clearly followed the watches and that is nothing like saying 'the JLC brandname is value in itself'."

Most people find JLC watches "interesting" or "desirable" because of the history and reputation that are associated with the brand name. While it is the brand name that people recognize, it is the inherent watch-making and movement quality that people are after when they buy a JLC. To give an example, JLC's Master Control has received high regards because of the quality and history of its 899 movement. And that level of quality and attention to detail in the movement/case is what makes it interesting and desirable, even though *any* watch brand can produce a simple 3 hander.

You seem to suggest that to be interesting, a watch must have some unique functionality or features. I disagree for the reasons stated above, but in arguendo, JLC does have some "unique" pieces around or below $15k.

You already mentioned Reverso as one. While the alarm function is not unique to JLC, being the first alarm watch and the iconic design of memovox has made it pretty unique IMO. Also, the fact that you easily dismissed being the _first_ as an important factor to make a watch special or interesting shows your bias against the brand. With this logic, you probably will not give credits to Rolex GMT, Explorer I, and Omega Speedmaster.

AMVOX 2 uses the crystal as the chrono buttons is pretty unique.

Master Hometime and Master Geographic's GMT implementation is pretty unique, and not commonly found (if at all) for watches that costs less.

Master Hometime also houses the "autotractor" movement that is unique to JLC, which significantly improves on the reliability, accuracy, and robustness of the movement.

MUT Moon, while its feature or functionality is not entirely unique, but is so well designed that I don't think it can be beaten by any watch that costs less (or even watches that cost a lot more). I think few people would view that watch as boring.

The use of compressor key (patented by JLC) in its Master Compressor watches, unique to JLC. The compressor key offers a superior functionality over screw-down crowns.

The philosophy that uni-directional rotor winding is more efficient than bi-directional rotor winding in real-life watch-wearing situations is certainly against the belief that is commonly held by most other watch manufacturers.

These are just several examples I could think of right now.

Daniel


----------



## vysis

you guys seem to think that I have something against JLC, which I don't. 

I'm merely stating an observation and maybe a fact, which is that a lot of people find lower-mid end JLC watches boring and that at a similar price-point, there are much more interesting watches available.

We can argue and debate for another 5 pages, but ultimately, I'm on the JLC forum, I realize I'm not going to change hearts.

Instead, let me make one simple, factual point. Using this very forum as an indicator of public interest:

IWC has 19,517 posts
Zenith has 24,987 posts
Omega has 584,047 posts
Panerai has 36,074 posts
Breitling has 115,225 posts
Rolex has ~50,000 posts

JLC has 7,037 posts


For every maker I've listed, they all make watches that directly compete with JLC in price. In other words, anybody who buys an IWC, a Zenith, a Rolex etc... all make a conscious decision not to buy a JLC. Why is that?

The obvious answer is because people simply think other brands offer a more desirable watch at the same price. It's the fundamental and unwavering truth of the free economy, people vote with their dollars to what they think is best.

Now there is value to the history and prestige of the JLC brand. However, this forum has elevated the JLC to such a pedestal and their lower-mid end watches don't deserve the devotion that they receive.

Is a Master Ultra Thin worth $6000? The JLC forum would clearly say 'yes', but look beyond the camp of the converted and you'll see that most people clearly think there are more desirable alternatives for $6000... and $8000... and $10,000.

And furthermore, for the few people who spend $6000 to buy a Master Ultra Thin, why did they do it? They bought it based on the strength of the JLC brand-name (yes, there's the 1000h master-control... but lets be honest, that's not why you spent the $6000).

So at that point, what differentiates JLC buyers and the ever so reviled Rolex buyers? They're both buying for brand-name, though JLC just happens to have more wis-cred. (And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against buying for brand-name, I'm just pointing out this contradiction in attitudes)


----------



## GaryF

Well, even though you've taken out two thirds of your own argument in this question, you're still only asking me to name watches which I find interesting (easy finish-up: Deep Sea Chrono' with it's chrono' indicator). 
The point _you_ are missing is that _you_ don't get to decide what is interesting or uninteresting for the rest of us and then state that our own opinions come from our susceptibility to branding.
Name three watches in the same bracket from IWC that are interesting (or _any_ brand, for that matter). You can do it if you take the question as "what is interesting to you?" but there is no objective criteria to decide what is interesting and what isn't. It's great that we all have different tastes but it's less great when we come to believe that everyone else's tastes are indicators of their inability to understand what gives something value.



vysis said:


> You clearly did and I'll illustrate exactly how.
> 
> Name 3 models from JLC that retails up to 15k which are intrinsically _interesting _by themselves without the JLC brand-name.
> 
> For ex. I'll give you the Reverso off the bat, that's definitely a neat concept and design that no other house does.
> 
> You've already mentioned the Memovox, I guess some people will regard the fact that it's the first alarm as interesting... but that's the only factor. There are many alarm watches out there with virtually identical designs that's much cheaper.


----------



## vysis

GaryF said:


> Well, even though you've taken out two thirds of your own argument in this question, you're still only asking me to name watches which I find interesting (easy finish-up: Deep Sea Chrono' with it's chrono' indicator).
> The point _you_ are missing is that _you_ don't get to decide what is interesting or uninteresting for the rest of us and then state that our own opinions come from our susceptibility to branding.
> Name three watches in the same bracket from IWC that are interesting (or _any_ brand, for that matter). You can do it if you take the question as "what is interesting to you?" but there is no objective criteria to decide what is interesting and what isn't. It's great that we all have different tastes but it's less great when we come to believe that everyone else's tastes are indicators of their inability to understand what gives something value.


I realize there's no point in debating this, so refer to my previous post. These are facts, not opinions


vysis said:


> Using this very forum as an indicator of public interest:
> 
> IWC has 19,517 posts
> Zenith has 24,987 posts
> Omega has 584,047 posts
> Panerai has 36,074 posts
> Breitling has 115,225 posts
> Rolex has ~50,000 posts
> 
> JLC has 7,037 posts


----------



## dak_la

vysis said:


> you guys seem to think that I have something against JLC, which I don't.
> 
> I'm merely stating an observation and maybe a fact, which is that a lot of people find lower-mid end JLC watches boring and that at a similar price-point, there are much more interesting watches available.
> 
> We can argue and debate for another 5 pages, but ultimately, I'm on the JLC forum, I realize I'm not going to change hearts.
> 
> Instead, let me make one simple, factual point. Using this very forum as an indicator of public interest:
> 
> IWC has 19,517 posts
> Zenith has 24,987 posts
> Omega has 584,047 posts
> Panerai has 36,074 posts
> Breitling has 115,225 posts
> Rolex has ~50,000 posts
> 
> JLC has 7,037 posts
> 
> For every maker I've listed, they all make watches that directly compete with JLC in price. In other words, anybody who buys an IWC, a Zenith, a Rolex etc... all make a conscious decision not to buy a JLC. Why is that?
> 
> The obvious answer is because people simply think other brands offer a more desirable watch at the same price. It's the fundamental and unwavering truth of the free economy, people vote with their dollars to what they think is best.
> 
> Now there is value to the history and prestige of the JLC brand. However, this forum has elevated the JLC to such a pedestal and their lower-mid end watches don't deserve the devotion that they receive.
> 
> Is a Master Ultra Thin worth $6000? The JLC forum would clearly say 'yes', but look beyond the camp of the converted and you'll see that most people clearly think there are more desirable alternatives for $6000... and $8000... and $10,000.
> 
> And furthermore, for the few people who spend $6000 to buy a Master Ultra Thin, why did they do it? They bought it based on the strength of the JLC brand-name (yes, there's the 1000h master-control... but lets be honest, that's not why you spent the $6000).
> 
> So at that point, what differentiates JLC buyers and the ever so reviled Rolex buyers? They're both buying for brand-name, though JLC just happens to have more wis-cred. (And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against buying for brand-name, I'm just pointing out this contradiction in attitudes)


You have been jumping from points to points and have conveniently dismissed each and every counter-argument offered here. I'm going to only make a few general points here:

1) It's ok that you don't find JLC watches desirable (at least the ones within the $5k - $15k price range). I think your opinion has been respected here.
2) I only want to point out the flaws in your reasoning in establishing the fact that _objectively speaking_, JLC watches are inferior to other brands within that price range. Your *factual data* of post counts do not support that argument either. There are also many reasons why people choose other brands over JLC (e.g., aesthetic styles, complications, etc.) For example, if I want a pilot watch, I will not pick a JLC for the simple reason that JLC don't offer pilot watches. However, if one is in the market for an ultra-thin dress watch, I think JLC MUT will be high on many people's list (name me another ultra thin at that price range that is more desirable).

Btw, I love the IWC 5001, but will not buy it because it doesn't look good on my wrist and it's out of my budget.

Daniel


----------



## GaryF

vysis said:


> I realize there's no point in debating this, so refer to my previous post. These are facts, not opinions


Facts proving what?



> _Using this very forum as an indicator of public interest:
> _
> _IWC has 19,517 posts_
> _Zenith has 24,987 posts_
> _Omega has 584,047 posts_
> _Panerai has 36,074 posts_
> _Breitling has 115,225 posts_
> _Rolex has ~50,000 posts_
> 
> _JLC has 7,037 posts_


 So Panerai make watches which are over five times as interesting as JLC? We judge watches by how many posts they get on WUS?
I agree that there's no point in debating this, especially when that's the level of the debate.

I think, at this point, that we've both posted enough to allow people to draw conclusions from what has already been said.


----------



## Watermark

vysis said:


> you guys seem to think that I have something against JLC, which I don't.
> 
> Instead, let me make one simple, factual point. Using this very forum as an indicator of public interest:
> 
> IWC has 19,517 posts
> Zenith has 24,987 posts
> Omega has 584,047 posts
> Panerai has 36,074 posts
> Breitling has 115,225 posts
> Rolex has ~50,000 posts
> 
> JLC has 7,037 posts
> 
> )


This point you make cracks me up.

Have you read this forum? This is the Omega strong hold of the interweb. You can't ask a question without at least 5 suggesting Omega Speedmasster. There's at least one guy that had 6 of the stinking identical watch. Its also about shear numbers. Omega sells 700k watches a year. They should have 20 times the posts of all others.

Exceept Rolex. That forum is dead as Rolex fanboys can't think for themselves so they have really nothing to say amongst each other. They bought the watch because of its name.

The post actually makes for a strong argument for Jaeger. 7k posts in a forum yet you can't find one thread on this board without JLC getting mentioned as an option. So very few own yet so many love their heritage, movements and design they consistently offer them as a strong option to buy.

We had a thread a while back. Which Maker would you choose if you can only choose one and Jaeger was 2 to 1 the others. Interesting with only 7k posts in a sub forum.

I own 3 and will be buying my wife a Reverso when I find the correct piece for her. The brand is good. Solid iconic designs mimicked by tons. It's the watch the watchmakers wear.

Are there more desirable for me? Yes. I like FP Journe and A Lange more for my next addition to my collection. Do I love my 2 Reverso's and my Perp by JLC just as much as every other piece in my box? Without question.

Watches are too personal to claim one brand better than the next. So following and passion for a brand need to be a key element. 7k posts with a massive following and passion on this forum tells me that Jaeger may be the top brand on this forum for desire to own but mostly unaffordable for the masses. PP and Lange are mentioned a lot as top brands as well but 99 of 100 times that is followed by ......but they are out of my budget. JLC isn't a high priced brand. They offer good quality for a good entry level price.


----------



## jrosales

vysis said:


> You're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that what you would regard as elegant, understated and classic is not something that is unique to JLC. If you want a elegant, understated and classic watch, many watch makers offer these designs. That's why its "boring", there's nothing unique about JLC that's intrinsic to the watch itself.
> 
> Sure you could say that "the JLC brandname is value in itself". But at that point, what differentiates a JLC buyer and a Rolex buyer? They're both buying purely for a brand name, its just JLC tends to be more 'hipster and underground'.


Well of course the JLC brand name has a value. It's a value that's been earned through decades of quality, dependable and innovative watch/movement making. By buying "a JLC" we're buying into what the brand means at least as much as the actual watch itself. That's the thing that's "unique about JLC." Technically, every watch* design* has been done over and over - what's new, really? If I just wanted a watch that looks "classic" I can get that with a much cheaper quartz variety - there are many options out there, and in fact I have some of them. The whole point of owning a mechanical watch is tapping into a bit of the romance of having a piece of artistic machinery on your wrist that's anachronistic the moment you buy it, and yet if taken care of properly will be enjoyed by your progeny long after you're gone. In many ways the movement is what differentiates mechanical vs quartz watches. If that's the case, I would argue there are very few manufactures out there that are equal to (or even rarer: better than) JLC, especially at it's price point. Far from boring, I'd say.

Caveat: I don't own a JLC, but am a fan of mechanical watches in general - including IWC (and I agree, your 5001 is beautiful) and Rolex.


----------



## vysis

GaryF said:


> Facts proving what?
> 
> So Panerai make watches which are over five times as interesting as JLC? We judge watches by how many posts they get on WUS?
> I agree that there's no point in debating this, especially when that's the level of the debate.
> 
> I think, at this point, that we've both posted enough to allow people to draw conclusions from what has already been said.


Facts proving that at every price point, there is a watch more desirable than JLC. Perhaps not to you, but to the general public.

The numbers suggest a person would rather buy a Zenith or a Panerai than a JLC equivalent. Do you disagree this basic statement?

if so, why? How would you explain the difference in the number of posts? Would you suggest that JLC buyers know better than the general public who buys Panerai, Zenith etc?...


----------



## Watermark

vysis said:


> Facts proving that at every price point, there is a watch more desirable than JLC. Perhaps not to you, but to the general public.
> 
> If a person had $7000 to spend, the numbers suggest a person would rather buy a Zenith El Primero than a Compressor. Do you disagree this basic statement?


Zenith?

no way

omega yes because they sell 700,000 watches a year advertised in every part of the world.

Where have you seen JlC advertised before?


----------



## vysis

Watermark said:


> Zenith?
> 
> no way
> 
> omega yes because they sell 700,000 watches a year advertised in every part of the world.
> 
> Where have you seen JlC advertised before?


Why do you think JLC doesn't advertise?

JLC is owned by Richemont, who is the 2nd largest luxury conglomerate in the world. They certainly have more marketing budget and ability than Omega (and _Swatch_).

JLC doesn't advertise all over the world in every location imaginable BECAUSE (getting back to my point) that JLC is a niche brand many don't find very interesting. And Richemont (with their bevies of Harvard Marketers) realize that they are wasting money in mass marketing.


----------



## vysis

Watermark said:


> This point you make cracks me up.
> 
> Have you read this forum? This is the Omega strong hold of the interweb. You can't ask a question without at least 5 suggesting Omega Speedmasster. There's at least one guy that had 6 of the stinking identical watch. Its also about shear numbers. Omega sells 700k watches a year. They should have 20 times the posts of all others.


Yeah, but ask yourself: "Why are there so many people who love omega watches?". Especially since the price of the Ceramic Planet Oceans are close to the most of many JLC watches. If people liked JLC more, why don't these people buy JLC instead of Omega?



Watermark said:


> Exceept Rolex. That forum is dead as Rolex fanboys can't think for themselves so they have really nothing to say amongst each other. They bought the watch because of its name.





Watermark said:


> Watches are too personal to claim one brand better than the next. So following and passion for a brand need to be a key element. 7k posts with a massive following and passion on this forum tells me that Jaeger may be the top brand on this forum for desire to own but mostly unaffordable for the masses. PP and Lange are mentioned a lot as top brands as well but 99 of 100 times that is followed by ......but they are out of my budget. JLC isn't a high priced brand. They offer good quality for a good entry level price.


This is a key point I'm trying to make that everybody seems to be ignoring.

Many people buy JLC because its a good name and they respect that... so whats the difference JLC buyers and the Rolex buyer that bought a Rolex because they respect the Rolex name? Other than the fact that JLC has more Wis-Cred... but in that case, you're just dealing in a snob-mentality.


----------



## vysis

dak_la said:


> there are also many reasons why people choose other brands over JLC (e.g., aesthetic styles, complications, etc.) For example, if I want a pilot watch, I will not pick a JLC for the simple reason that JLC don't offer pilot watches. However, if one is in the market for an ultra-thin dress watch, I think JLC MUT will be high on many people's list (name me another ultra thin at that price range that is more desirable).


Yeah, but the problem is that not many people WANT an ultra-thin dress watch. Why? Because they find an three-hand ultrathin dress watch to be quite boring and not a good value proposition... especially at $6000.

And that's the point I've been making. Look beyond this small niche community of the converted, and you have to realize the wider market find lower-mid end JLC to be uninteresting.


----------



## Watermark

vysis said:


> Yeah, but ask yourself: "Why are there so many people who love omega watches?". Especially since the price of the Ceramic Planet Oceans are close to the most of many JLC watches. If people liked JLC more, why don't these people buy JLC instead of Omega?
> 
> This is a key point I'm trying to make that everybody seems to be ignoring.
> 
> Many people buy JLC because its a good name and they respect that... so whats the difference JLC buyers and the Rolex buyer that bought a Rolex because they respect the Rolex name? Other than the fact that JLC has more Wis-Cred... but in that case, you're just dealing in a snob-mentality.


Not at all.

Rolex. Sorry to all the Rolex owners, sells 99% of their watches because of heavy advertising and the faliscy that Rolex is the watch you wear when you are Rich. They sell for zero other reason to the 99%.

Two words why Omega sells so many.

Chinese.

Well it's 1 word but there are 1.8 billion of them. They could sell 700000 watches to China alone for 2500 years and not sell to all of them. 


vysis said:


> Yeah, but the problem is that *I don't * WANT an ultra-thin dress watch. Why? Because *I *find an three-hand ultrathin dress watch to be quite boring and not a good value proposition... especially at $6000.
> 
> And that's the point I've been making. Look beyond this small niche community of the converted, and you have to realize the wider market find lower-mid end JLC to be uninteresting.


Fixed

while I don't like ultra thins either. It's a very popular watch as many men in this world don't like big watches.


----------



## LHL

Actually many people purchase Zenith, Omega, Tag Heuer and many other brands for one or two of three reasons. They either are not familiar with the brand, JLC is out of their reach or they just don't feel it's worth spending much money on most expensive watches. In fact, the last one is where the general public stands. It has nothing to do with any one watch being more desirable. The number of posts has to do with what most people are familiar with and attainable. Again, it has nothing to do with what is more desirable. I myself like watches in general and I can't say I desire one more than another.


----------



## vysis

Watermark said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Rolex. Sorry to all the Rolex owners, sells 99% of their watches because of heavy advertising and the faliscy that Rolex is the watch you wear when you are Rich. They sell for zero other reason to the 99%.
> 
> Two words why Omega sells so many.
> 
> Chinese.
> 
> Well it's 1 word but there are 1.8 billion of them. They could sell 700000 watches to China alone for 2500 years and not sell to all of them.
> 
> Fixed
> 
> while I don't like ultra thins either. It's a very popular watch as many men in this world don't like big watches.


I could just as easily say "JLC sells 99% of their watches because of the fallacy that JLC is the watch you wear if you are a watch snob who thinks you know more about watches than others. And that JLC sell for zero other reason to the 99%."

Furthermore, you attribute Rolex's success to heavy advertising. But if JLC is so much superior, why don't they simply advertise as well?

Also, there are tons of JLC dealers in China. Why do the Chinese population buy Omega instead of JLC? Are you suggesting that Chinese consumers are inferior to Western consumers and that we should discount their tastes?

Also, I love Ultra thin watches. My two choices were the JLC MUT Moon and IWC Port 7-day. That being said, the numbers clearly indicate that people don't want Ultra-thin watches.

Otherwise, can you explain why JLC isn't a more popular with more activity in its forum? Especially since (as you stated) that the MUT Ultra thin is the best watch of its class in the given price range.


----------



## vysis

LHL said:


> Actually many people purchase Zenith, Omega, Tag Heuer and many other brands for one or two of three reasons. They either are not familiar with the brand, JLC is out of their reach or they just don't feel it's worth spending much money on most expensive watches. In fact, the last one is where the general public stands. It has nothing to do with any one watch being more desirable. The number of posts has to do with what most people are familiar with and attainable. Again, it has nothing to do with what is more desirable. I myself like watches in general and I can't say I desire one more than another.


With Tag Heuer, maybe. But if you're going to buy something like a Zenith, I don't think a JLC is finally out of reach. Not spending money on watches is common to this industry in general.

With regards to brand exposure, why do you think it is that a lot of people aren't familiar with JLC? Is it because when they see a JLC watch, they simply forget about it because they don't find it interesting? I'd imagine if you do any amount of research on watches, chances are, you've heard of JLC due to all of the hype it receives (which is ultimately the core of this entire debate, does JLC deserve this hype for their lower-mid end watches.)


----------



## Watermark

vysis said:


> I could just as easily say "JLC sells 99% of their watches because of the fallacy that JLC is the watch you wear if you are a watch snob who thinks you know more about watches than others. And that JLC sell for zero other reason to the 99%."
> 
> Furthermore, you attribute Rolex's success to heavy advertising. But if JLC is so much superior, why don't they simply advertise as well?
> 
> Also, there are tons of JLC dealers in China. Why do the Chinese population buy Omega instead of JLC? Are you suggesting that Chinese consumers are inferior to Western consumers and that we should discount their tastes?
> 
> Also, I love Ultra thin watches. My two choices were the JLC MUT Moon and IWC Port 7-day. That being said, the numbers clearly indicate that people don't want Ultra-thin watches.
> 
> Otherwise, can you explain why JLC isn't a more popular with more activity in its forum? Especially since (as you stated) that the MUT Ultra thin is the best watch of its class in the given price range.


I don't have a clue which ultra thin is best and not once said that jlc was the best.

Jaeger advertises whom they want to sell to. They don't want to be Omega.

Why are you in the forum with all your hate for the brand?

are you pissed you can't afford one so you chose to bash?

I would believe Jaeger has the success JAeger wants to have. No more. No less.

Only Rolex and Omega want to be 1 million a year in sales. No one else does. Rolex is a tool making behemoth. Omega desperately wants to be. Those are the two.

Id say find a different fight. Why bash a brand you clearly hate? Move on.


----------



## GaryF

> vysis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts proving that at every price point, there is a watch more desirable than JLC. Perhaps not to you, but to the general public.
> 
> The numbers suggest a person would rather buy a Zenith or a Panerai than a JLC equivalent. Do you disagree this basic statement?
> 
> if so, why? How would you explain the difference in the number of posts? Would you suggest that JLC buyers know better than the general public who buys Panerai, Zenith etc?...
Click to expand...

No. Those are facts proving that more people post in Omega than JLC on WUS. There are many reasons for this. There are also many (and complex) reasons why a person should buy a watch of a particular brand. YOU do not know what they are.

You say I have missed your point but I'm wondering now if you ever really had one.

You started out saying that only branding makes JLC popular among WUS members and then post stats to prove that it isn't popular at all relative to other brands. 
How is is that people buy JLC simply because of the branding and yet Panerai or Omega are bought in larger numbers simply because they are more interesting. And Rolex has more posts, too! Does that mean that Rolexes are inherently more interesting and that no one is buying them because of the branding? Really?

Honestly, this is pointless. You do not seem to understand evidence or sample bias. You started out posting your personal response to JLC but without the humility to realise that's all it was and you are now thrashing around and posting poorly reasoned arguments, straw men and "proof" which, if it "proves" anything, actually contradicts your original assertion.

With that, I'm stepping away from this and will be monitoring it only in mod' capacity (because, unfortunately, I have to).


----------



## vysis

Watermark said:


> I don't have a clue which ultra thin is best and not once said that jlc was the best.
> 
> Jaeger advertises whom they want to sell to. They don't want to be Omega.
> 
> Why are you in the forum with all your hate for the brand?
> 
> are you pissed you can't afford one so you chose to bash?
> 
> I would believe Jaeger has the success JAeger wants to have. No more. No less.
> 
> Only Rolex and Omega want to be 1 million a year in sales. No one else does. Rolex is a tool making behemoth. Omega desperately wants to be. Those are the two.
> 
> Id say find a different fight. Why bash a brand you clearly hate? Move on.


*Sorry*, but I don't understand what you are saying anymore. Are you saying that JLC is _artificially limiting their sales_?

Even if JLC had such a preposterous notion, they don't get to decide, Richemont decides.

Richemont is a publicly held company that wants to maximize their profit by selling as many watches as possible. The fact they turned Montblanc into a franken-watch company to sell a few more watches should prove this to you.

I've stated over and over again in my past forums that I love JLC, did you even read my past posts? Also, I wear a IWC Port 7-day, so yes, I can afford a JLC. Though I don't see how bashing me personally helps your argument in the slightest.


----------



## vysis

GaryF said:


> No. Those are facts proving that more people post in Omega than JLC on WUS. There are many reasons for this. There are also many (and complex) reasons why a person should buy a watch of a particular brand. YOU do not know what they are.
> 
> You say I have missed your point but I'm wondering now if you ever really had one.
> 
> You started out saying that only branding makes JLC popular among WUS members and then post stats to prove that it isn't popular at all relative to other brands.
> How is is that people buy JLC simply because of the branding and yet Panerai or Omega are bought in larger numbers simply because they are more interesting. And Rolex has more posts, too! Does that mean that Rolexes are inherently more interesting and that no one is buying them because of the branding? Really?
> 
> Honestly, this is pointless. You do not seem to understand evidence or sample bias. You started out posting your personal response to JLC but without the humility to realise that's all it was and you are now thrashing around and posting poorly reasoned arguments, straw men and "proof" which, if it "proves" anything, actually contradicts your original assertion.
> 
> With that, I'm stepping away from this and will be monitoring it only in mod' capacity (because, unfortunately, I have to).


Gary, attacking me personally doesn't help your argument in any way. I've posted facts that are easily verifiable. The interpretation of the facts are immediately obvious. If you disagree with the obvious interpretation, provide one rather than deflecting them ad-hominem whilst retreating from the discussion.

Now, I'm going to lay out my entire argument in bullet point since you clearly didn't read my past posts (admittedly, they are a bit long) and don't understand my argument at all. Even if you don't respond, please read them so it may calm your self-righteous incense.

+ JLC is a great brand with a long history. Their Haute Horology is impeccable and I'd argue superior to Lange or Patek

+ Since JLC, Zenith, Panerai, IWC and Rolex are relatively closely priced. For somebody to buy something like a Rolex Submariner, they make a decision to consciously not buy a JLC Navy Seal.
--*Because he can only choose one,* it means the fact he chooses the Rolex, means that he desires Rolex more than JLC.
---This person, now a Rolex owner, will engage with the Rolex forum more than the JLC forum.

+ *Thus, i*t's logical to assume that more activities on a forum = more appreciators of the brand.
--And by reverse, the more appreciators of a brand = more owners of the brands = more desirable (since these people all chose that brand over JLC)
---If you think my interpretation to this fact is wrong, please actually provide a reason rather than hide behind rhetoric.

+ *Why is that? Well, its fairly evident.* If we look at lower-mid end JLC watches, such as the Master Ultrathin. There is very little about it that justifies its price other than the fact that its a JLC.
--For example, Zenith Ultrathin = $3800  vs Master Ultrathin = $6640. Despite both watches being virtually identical _(the zenith is actually thinner with more PR)
_---*So for the few who bought a Master Ultrathin, why did he choose JLC over Zenith? Clearly only because of the JLC brand.*
---Is there anything wrong with buying for a brand name? No. But at that point, what differentiates a Rolex buyer and a JLC buyer?
----Now, at this point, rather than recoiling in horror and reflexively defending yourself. Please actually think about it and realize that it's not an insult. It's just a statement. Furthermore, as a side comment, I wish people would stop being a snob to Rolex buyers, there is nothing wrong with Rolex (from a history and industry perspective, Rolex has done more than any other watch company)

^+ Of course, in the broader scope, most people simply chose not to buy the Master Ultrathin because they don't value the JLC brand name.
*--At every price level, in every comparison between JLC and another brand, most people decided to choose the other brand, hence why there are so little participants in the JLC community.*

+ Ultimately, to answer the OP's question. Are there brands that are more desirable? Simply look at the market. There's a reason why there's a lot more Omegas or Rolexes being bought. *That's the measure of desirability, how many watches are being bought and sold (used and new).* If you want to discuss personal opinions, then I'm sure JLC is the greatest brand in the world, _because afterall, this is the JLC forum._

+ If you took any of what I said above as a personal insult because you own a JLC, then so be it. But ultimately, when you bought your JLC, you knew it was a niche product to be appreciate only by few. In fact, that's PROBABLY why you bought it in the first place.

*TL;DR: *JLC is great, but lets be honest, it's a niche brand. Why is it a niche brand? Because its not interesting enough to appeal to the general public. That's probably why you bought a JLC in the first place, because its a niche brand only few people appreciate and you wanted the exclusivity of being "in the club". But the cost of that exclusivity is that most people won't appreciate your watch. So don't take what I'm saying as an insult, it's the reason why you bought your watch in the first place.


----------



## GaryF

> + Since JLC, Zenith, Panerai, IWC and Rolex are relatively closely priced. For somebody to buy something like a Rolex Submariner, they make a decision to consciously not buy a JLC Navy Seal.
> --*Because he can only choose one, it means the fact he chooses the Rolex, means that he desires Rolex more than JLC.
> ---This person, now a Rolex owner, will engage with the Rolex forum more than the JLC forum.
> *


No. It doesn't. It might be that a Rolex buyer bought a Rolex because:

His father had one.
He got a good deal.
He believes in the "Crown for every achievement" marketing.
He saw the ads on the F1 GP.
He was a fan of the early Bond films.
Hi favourite tennis star wears one,etc,
etc,
etc.

All of these reasons have nothing to do with a person consciously comparing and rejecting a JLC. Most people have never even heard of the JLC Navy Seals watches and those who "make a decision to consciously not buy a JLC Navy Seal" would be a statistically insignificant amount given the numbers of Submariners sold. 
*People just like different things*. There is no need to try and theorise as to why some poor, easily-fleeced souls were unable to come to your enlightened opinion.

So, to your other question, why would someone buy a JLC and not post about it on a WatchUSeek? Here goes.

He has researched enough to know that the watches are good but is not interested in the forum.
His father/friend owned one and recommended them but he has no interest in watch forums.
He likes a particular actor/brand ambassador but has no interest in watch forums.
He appreciates the iconic history of a particular model but has no interest in watch forums.
He has had a particular admiration for the quality of JLC's movements but has no....etc
He compared it with a Rolex Submariner but felt that the Rolex was boring but, still, he has no interest in watch forums.
He doesn't know that there are forums dedicated to particular watches.
He compared it to IWC and Omega but was put off by the stories of poor after-sales service when he visited a watch forum solely for the purpose or researching the purchase. He has no interest in continuing to peruse watch forums.
He hasn't posted because the watch has given him no problems (a very large number of threads in Omega, for instance, are about reliability/quality/service issues).
He posts on a forum which has more traffic in its JLC section.
He may post on another watch forum because he already knows members there.
He may own several brands of watches and spend more time in other brand fora for reasons of traffic, community etc
He may think that, after a cursory glance, the level of discussion in the WUS JLC forum is not what he was hoping for.

Surely that's enough. If not, try:

He likes the JLC. It suits his style/taste/purpose but he has NO INTEREST in posting on a watch forum. He hasn't been sucked in by branding but he is aware that JLC have earned a reputation for fine, high-quality movements. He ain't postin', though, 'cause it ain't his bag.

The reason I didn't post any of that before was because I found it hard to believe that anyone couldn't have come up with any of those reasons themselves with a little thought and imagination.

Knowing how many people post in a particular watch forum tells you how many people post in a particular watch forum. That's it.

And, before you get on your high-horse about _ad hominem _remarks, maybe you should refresh your memory as to who began his contribution to the thread with sweeping statements about how those buying lower-tier JLCs are just dumbly swallowing brand cache. The only element of the actual subject matter you have addressed is the deeply subjective subject of aesthetics.
Attacking arguments for being ill-thought out, contradictory and condescending will inevitably have some _ad hominem _fallout on the one who made them.


----------



## systemcrasher

vysis said:


> Furthermore, you attribute Rolex's success to heavy advertising. But if JLC is so much superior, why don't they simply advertise as well?


How often do you see a Toyota or Honda ad? How often do you see a Ferrari or Lamborghini ad?



vysis said:


> Also, I love Ultra thin watches. My two choices were the JLC MUT Moon and IWC Port 7-day. That being said, the numbers clearly indicate that people don't want Ultra-thin watches.
> 
> Otherwise, can you explain why JLC isn't a more popular with more activity in its forum? Especially since (as you stated) that the MUT Ultra thin is the best watch of its class in the given price range.


So with your logic, looking at the forum post counts, I guess more people "desire", "want" affordable watches over high-end watches; Casio G-shock is more "desirable" watch than entire range of Omegas and ALS should just pack up and shut up shops.. measly 162 posts, I guess therefore no one is buying ALS watches. Because all those millionaires and billionaires who own ALS watches will forever sit in front of their computers typing up posts of what they've just bought.... Hell, this forum doesn't even have a Patek subforum. Therefore, going by your "logic" no one in the world has ever bought a Patek?



vysis said:


> + JLC is a great brand with a long history. Their Haute Horology is impeccable and I'd argue superior to Lange or Patek


Ummm, so, for you it's Lange, Patek<JLC yet you'd still choose IWC and Zenith over JLC?



vysis said:


> + Since JLC, Zenith, Panerai, IWC and Rolex are relatively closely priced. For somebody to buy something like a Rolex Submariner, they make a decision to consciously not buy a JLC Navy Seal.
> --*Because he can only choose one,* it means the fact he chooses the Rolex, means that he desires Rolex more than JLC.
> ---This person, now a Rolex owner, will engage with the Rolex forum more than the JLC forum.
> 
> + *Thus, i*t's logical to assume that more activities on a forum = more appreciators of the brand.
> --And by reverse, the more appreciators of a brand = more owners of the brands = more desirable (since these people all chose that brand over JLC)
> ---If you think my interpretation to this fact is wrong, please actually provide a reason rather than hide behind rhetoric.


Not everyone who buys watches posts it on here. And it's really stupid thing to "logically assume" that posters on WUS represent 7 billion people....



vysis said:


> + *Why is that? Well, its fairly evident.* If we look at lower-mid end JLC watches, such as the Master Ultrathin. There is very little about it that justifies its price other than the fact that its a JLC.
> --For example, Zenith Ultrathin = $3800  vs Master Ultrathin = $6640. Despite both watches being virtually identical _(the zenith is actually thinner with more PR)
> _---*So for the few who bought a Master Ultrathin, why did he choose JLC over Zenith? Clearly only because of the JLC brand.*


Or had extra $3000 to spend on the watch? Maybe liked the deployant buckle over the tang buckle. Maybe wanted to have the subdial in a specific position? Price and brand name aren't only things that influence people's purchase decisions.



vysis said:


> ---Is there anything wrong with buying for a brand name? No. But at that point, what differentiates a Rolex buyer and a JLC buyer?


Most Rolex buyers you see on the street wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an ETA movement and Calibre 4130 movement. Why do you think so many fake Rolexes get sold/bought?



vysis said:


> ----Now, at this point, rather than recoiling in horror and reflexively defending yourself. Please actually think about it and realize that it's not an insult. It's just a statement. Furthermore, as a side comment, I wish people would stop being a snob to Rolex buyers, there is nothing wrong with Rolex (from a history and industry perspective, Rolex has done more than any other watch company)


There are few things severely wrong with Rolex. Majority of its owners to start with...



vysis said:


> + Ultimately, to answer the OP's question. Are there brands that are more desirable? Simply look at the market. There's a reason why there's a lot more Omegas or Rolexes being bought. *That's the measure of desirability, how many watches are being bought and sold (used and new).* If you want to discuss personal opinions, then I'm sure JLC is the greatest brand in the world, _because afterall, this is the JLC forum._


Sooooo, I guess Nike is more desirable than Prada, Coke is more desirable than Moet et Chandon, Bic is more desirable than Montegrappa, Johnnie Walker Red Label is more desirable than Johnnie Walker Blue Label, simply because more people buy/sell the formers?


----------



## jrosales

vysis said:


> *TL;DR: *


It seems like at some point, you took it personally that people here don't agree with your so-called objective assessment regarding JLC. You can use the posting numbers or sales figures or whatever, but you're trying to justify calling a brand "boring," which is a purely subjective qualification. And as far as that goes, the only argument that's necessary against it is: "I don't think it's boring." Whether or not a million people who bought Rolex or Omega agree (or some guy who tried really hard to like JLC but ultimately chose an IWC and now seems really eager to justify to themselves that they made the right decision) really doesn't matter.

So good luck to you, sir. I'm probably NOT going to be thinking of all these arguments when I eventually get around to getting the MUT Moon. I'll probably just secretly cherish my non-Rolex as I raise my nose at my colleagues who sadly didn't know any better - otherwise they would've obviously seen things my way. (Sarcasm intended, just in case it didn't come across.)


----------



## vysis

GaryF: *Can you not see that's what makes a watch interesting? *That's what gives a watch value, its the fact his father had one, its the fact that his favourite celebrities wear them, its the fact he wants to be like bond.

The fact that he's never heard of JLC proves it's an uninteresting brand to him. Afterall, how could something he's never heard of be interesting?

Have you ever heard of Nakaya? They are one of the most respected fountain pen makers in the world (the JLC of Fountain Pens), but because you've never heard of them, it makes it uninteresting to you. *Now if we go up to a random person and ask "would you desire a Nakaya or a Montblanc?" What do you think he'll say? That's called general opinion and that's what I'm trying to establish. *It's already perfectly clear what personal opinions are in the JLC forum. There was never any need to debate that.

Furthermore, lets drop the whole numbers game because you clearly don't believe in statistics or you have a notion that JLC buyers are a completely different breed of people with different behaviors than other watch buyers.

Let me ask you this simple question: Do you think that Rolex, Zenith and Omega are vastly more popular than JLC? If so, then I've made my point.


_jrosales__:_ I'm trying to state a general opinion, not a personal opinion. Of course your personal opinions are unchangable and always right. But the General opinion is different. I can think that evolution is false, but its what everybody else thinks that we're trying to establish here.

systemcrasher: You're making one critical omission in your reasoning. The difference between Prada vs Nike or Visconti vs Bic is that they are completely different markets. You can't compare a $1 pen versus a $800 pen. *HOWEVER, JLC and Zenith or JLC and Rolex ARE in the same market. *

You don't see Ferrarri ads because Ferrarri is ultra niche. Ferrarri is similar to Lange, its understandable why they don't have ads. However, JLC is not Ferrarri, if anything, they are BMW/Mercedes because they target a wider market (although still luxury). Now ask yourself, how often do you see a BMW ad?

Also, we're not talking about Haute Horology here. We're talking about lower-mid end.


----------



## systemcrasher

vysis said:


> systemcrasher: You're making one critical omission in your reasoning. The difference between Prada vs Nike or Visconti vs Bic is that they are completely different markets. You can't compare a $1 pen versus a $800 pen. *HOWEVER, JLC and Zenith or JLC and Rolex ARE in the same market. *
> 
> You don't see Ferrarri ads because Ferrarri is ultra niche. Ferrarri is similar to Lange, its understandable why they don't have ads. However, JLC is not Ferrarri, if anything, they are BMW/Mercedes because they target a wider market (although still luxury). Now ask yourself, how often do you see a BMW ad?


It was amusing at first but I'm beginning to think people here are going back and forth with a person with the intelligence and reasoning logic of a brick wall..

How do you figure that JLC, Zenith and Rolex are in the same market? Is it because they are all watch brands or the pricing of your selective models?? Either way, your argument if flawed.

Prada and Nike are both fashion brands, they both make sunglasses, shoes, shirts, pants, bags, wallets and so on therefore in the same market.
Also, Nike produces shoes and clothes that match prices of some Prada shoes and clothes. So why is Nike and Prada in the completely different markets?

Bic also makes $450-500 pens and Montegrappa, Montblanc make pens that are as low as $150-200. Therefore I'm not comparing a $1 pen vs $800 pen. Once again, as you say, they are in the same market.

You are being very selective in your reasoning - especially in pricing, so if your reasoning stands, I think my reasoning stands pretty well too.

And Rolex/Tudor or Tag Heuer would be BMW or Merc as these two target and market to wide market and make everything from something just about anyone can pick up (1series or A series or the Smart Car) or for the filthy rich (SLS, AMGs, 7 series and so on).

JLC doesn't need to market their products to any ol' idiot with $10k or with parents who can dish out $10k. That's how you keep the integrity of the brand. And considering the company has been going since 1830's, I don't think they are particularly worried about individuals here and there going towards other brands.


----------



## Watermark

systemcrasher said:


> It was amusing at first but I'm beginning to think people here are going back and forth with a person with the intelligence and reasoning logic of a brick wall..
> 
> How do you figure that JLC, Zenith and Rolex are in the same market? Is it because they are all watch brands or the pricing of your selective models?? Either way, your argument if flawed.
> 
> Prada and Nike are both fashion brands, they both make sunglasses, shoes, shirts, pants, bags, wallets and so on therefore in the same market.
> Also, Nike produces shoes and clothes that match prices of some Prada shoes and clothes. So why is Nike and Prada in the completely different markets?
> 
> Bic also makes $450-500 pens and Montegrappa, Montblanc make pens that are as low as $150-200. Therefore I'm not comparing a $1 pen vs $800 pen. Once again, as you say, they are in the same market.
> 
> You are being very selective in your reasoning - especially in pricing, so if your reasoning stands, I think my reasoning stands pretty well too.
> 
> And Rolex/Tudor or Tag Heuer would be BMW or Merc as these two target and market to wide market and make everything from something just about anyone can pick up (1series or A series or the Smart Car) or for the filthy rich (SLS, AMGs, 7 series and so on).
> 
> JLC doesn't need to market their products to any ol' idiot with $10k or with parents who can dish out $10k. That's how you keep the integrity of the brand. And considering the company has been going since 1830's, I don't think they are particularly worried about individuals here and there going towards other brands.


Well said.

Oh and Vysis
i received my JLC and Ferrari ads as usual weekly today. Did you . Maybe they are selective on whom they advertise.

Jaeger is not a luxury brand of watch like Omega Rolex and Zenith. They aren't comparable. They also aren't crap like Mercedes so please don't lump them into this group ever. They don't market as they sell the numbers they want to sell.

I am curious why he's even here other than trolling.


----------



## GaryF

vysis said:


> GaryF:
> 
> The fact that he's never heard of JLC proves it's an uninteresting brand to him. Afterall, how could something he's never heard of be interesting?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Nakaya? They are one of the most respected fountain pen makers in the world (the JLC of Fountain Pens), but because you've never heard of them, it makes it uninteresting to you.


No. It is a result of fountain pens being uninteresting to me. Nakaya might make the most fascinating, interesting, value-packed fountain pens in the World. The fact that I don't know about them has *nothing *to do with the relative merits of the product and I wouldn't in a million years be so solipsistic as to conclude that it did.

If, from what little I now know about them, I were to form an opinion on them and start pontificating on the motivations and limitations of those who buy them, that would be a great example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Here's a link. It's interesting.

Dunning


----------



## systemcrasher

Watermark said:


> I am curious why he's even here other than trolling.


Maybe he wants to hear that Zenith, IWC, Rolex are better than JLC... tut tut tut not gonna happen here


----------



## Watermark

systemcrasher said:


> Maybe he wants to hear that Zenith, IWC, Rolex are better than JLC... tut tut tut not gonna happen here


Well they do sell a lot. 

problem is by that logic the NON Swiss Brands are all better than ALL Swiss brands.

97% plus of watches sold in the world aren't Swiss. Funny though 54% of the money spent on watches is spent on Swiss.

If Rolex and Omega didn't sell their 1.7 million watches a year I'd imagine the percentage would be closer to 99% aren't Swiss. Crazy to think.

The good news is this Forum now is going to catch Omega soon in posts.


----------



## rightrower

I'm leaning toward JLC watch. Though i have not bought one yet, JLC watch speaks to me.


----------



## GaryF

And one final thing: if it is such an unarguable fact that the numbers of posts/posters proves your point correct, then surely the number posts/posters arguing that your arguments are nonsensical vs. the number of those posting to say they make sense (er...that would be none, then) ought to be pretty conclusive by your own reasoning, right?


----------



## dak_la

vysis said:


> *Now if we go up to a random person and ask "would you desire a Nakaya or a Montblanc?" What do you think he'll say? That's called general opinion and that's what I'm trying to establish. *It's already perfectly clear what personal opinions are in the JLC forum. There was never any need to debate that.
> 
> I'm trying to state a general opinion, not a personal opinion. Of course your personal opinions are unchangable and always right. But the General opinion is different. I can think that evolution is false, but its what everybody else thinks that we're trying to establish here.


I think you would agree that the best way to establish a _general opinion_ is to conduct a survey, such as by asking the public "which watch or watch brand do you desire more". It is interesting, however, that you do not notice that all this time, you have only been providing us _your own_ opinion, rather than the public's opinion.

Incidentally, as Watermark has mentioned, there was a post in the Public Forum that asks people to choose one brand, if the person can only purchase watches from that one brand for the rest of their lives (see link below). According to this poll, a pretty large portion of the _public _prefers watches from JLC over other brands.
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/if-yo...ly-one-brand-rest-your-life-brand-857506.html

It might strengthen your argument if you conduct your own surveys over at the Public Forum, and cite them here.

What you tried to do instead, was using forum statistics (i.e., number of posts in each sub-forum) to show what the public feels in this subject matter.



vysis said:


> Furthermore, lets drop the whole numbers game because you clearly don't believe in statistics or you have a notion that JLC buyers are a completely different breed of people with different behaviors than other watch buyers.


However, deriving a correlation between forum statistics and your assertion can be problematic, especially when the link between the two is not apparently obvious. Here is a quote on statistical assumptions from wikipedia:
"Statistics, like all mathematical disciplines, does not generate valid conclusions from nothing. In order to generate interesting conclusions about real statistical populations, it is usually required to make some background assumptions. These must be made with care, because inappropriate assumptions can generate wildly inaccurate conclusions."

Thus, the strength of the conclusion relies heavily on the accuracy and appropriateness of the assumptions in which the conclusion is based. The conclusion can be proved to be invalid when any one of the those assumptions is unreliable.

Here, you are trying to show that JLC watches are uninteresting and undesirable based on comparing the number of posts on the different brand subforums on WUS. This correlation requires substantial assumptions, some of which you have shared in your earlier posts.



vysis said:


> + Since JLC, Zenith, Panerai, IWC and Rolex are relatively closely priced. For somebody to buy something like a Rolex Submariner, they make a decision to consciously not buy a JLC Navy Seal.
> --*Because he can only choose one, it means the fact he chooses the Rolex, means that he desires Rolex more than JLC.
> ---This person, now a Rolex owner, will engage with the Rolex forum more than the JLC forum.
> 
> + Thus, it's logical to assume that more activities on a forum = more appreciators of the brand.
> --And by reverse, the more appreciators of a brand = more owners of the brands = more desirable (since these people all chose that brand over JLC)*


Gary and Systemcrasher have already given you a multitude of reasons why your assumptions might not reflect the real world, to which I agree. So I am not going to repeat them here. Again, while this might be _your_ behavior, you cannot assume that the public follows your exact behavior. Case in point, two of my good friends and I have purchased mid-level luxury watches (all within the price range of $5k - $15k) separately within the last year. As far as I know, I am the only one among the three who participates in WUS. It only seems that your conclusion has been built on shaky ground from the start.

Again, not sure why you don't use a more direct method of just asking for public opinions to support your assertion, instead of trying to find correlations from random statistics. While you look up Dunning-Kruger Effect, please also take a look at confirmation bias, which is just as applicable in this case. Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

But wait, you have already shown that JLC is a very desirable brand according to your own words!




vysis said:


> Also, I love Ultra thin watches. My two choices were the JLC MUT Moon and IWC Port 7-day.


Now, I would never call the IWC Port 7 an ultra-thin myself, but you can disagree and we can have another debate. So if you were to purchase an ultra-thin, you would ONLY consider the JLC MUT. Not Zenith (which you think has a better value proposition), not Piaget, not VC. And ultimately, you purchased the IWC Port 7-day that is as far away from an ultra thin watch as it can be, and costs at least twice as much as the MUT. _Interesting_ logic, indeed.


Daniel


----------



## Babka

Wolvesq said:


> JLC is the strongest brand -- top to bottom -- at its price point. It's a proven company with a storied history and fantastic reputation. It consistently produces classy, well-designed watches. Glashutte Original is probably the closest in the same price range. It also produces some lovely pieces for the money. Grand Seiko also makes watches of comparable build quality to JLCs, and at a lower cost, though it has a limited line up. Patek and Lange, frankly, make even more impressive watches imo, but at a much higher price point.


Well said. You get great bang for your buck with JLC.


----------



## Spazz27

vysis said:


> well, I can understand where you're coming from. But at what point does "subtle", "elegant", "unpretentious" and "classic" differentiate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> other than a ~$5000 price difference? There are many elegant and subtle watches out there with very nice quality (afterall, it's very easy to make a clean, minimal design), so what makes JLC superior to these watches?


...maybe it's just me, because I work in design, and am thinking design all the time, and its the subtle differences that are usually considered genius not the obvious ones... As such, besides the fact these two watches are both circles, I see absolutely nothing else the same or even similar.

...and let me preface this by saying I am a HUGE Nomos fan... but under $5k.

The Nomos is pure Bauhaus, the Jubilee is no where near. At best it's closer to Art Deco... and while both styles are part of the "modern era/look" they are far from the same.

The bezel is completely different too... The Nomos, although very nice, doesn't have that very sharp profile (which doesn't translate well in photos), which dramatically alters the way it sits on the wrist.

And speaking of sitting on the wrist, the Nomos is fairly thin at 6.5mm, but still nearly 40% thicker because that particular JLC is only 4.05mm thick, and it's movement is 1.85mm thick. This makes the Jubilee one of the flattest mechanical watches in existence today!

... and forget about the fact the Jubilee is made of platinum too, and we're talking about a very special watch designed and built in a way that very few can... JLC is one of those few.

So for me, the fact that JLC has been maintaining this level of quality and design for so long, often referred to as the "watchmakers watch", known to make parts for many other high-end brands, known to be on the wrists of many PP watchmakers, etc., plus has the presence of mind to offer many models in steel, really makes JLC hard to beat -- ironically, offering more models in SS may also blind people into thinking they're not as high end as PP, etc., because SS means a lower entry price point when compared to PP, etc...

So to give my $0.02 to the OP question, I'd say if there is a more desirable brand, JLC's stiffest competition comes at the (much) higher price points, not the other way around... And even then, it'd be close!


----------



## Watermark

Spazz27 said:


> ...maybe it's just me, because I work in design, and am thinking design all the time, and its the subtle differences that are usually considered genius not the obvious ones... As such, besides the fact these two watches are both circles, I see absolutely nothing else the same or even similar.
> 
> ...and let me preface this by saying I am a HUGE Nomos fan... but under $5k.
> 
> The Nomos is pure Bauhaus, the Jubilee is no where near. At best it's closer to Art Deco... and while both styles are part of the "modern era/look" they are far from the same.
> 
> The bezel is completely different too... The Nomos, although very nice, doesn't have that very sharp profile (which doesn't translate well in photos), which dramatically alters the way it sits on the wrist.
> 
> And speaking of sitting on the wrist, the Nomos is fairly thin at 6.5mm, but still nearly 40% thicker because that particular JLC is only 4.05mm thick, and it's movement is 1.85mm thick. This makes the Jubilee one of the flattest mechanical watches in existence today!
> 
> ... and forget about the fact the Jubilee is made of platinum too, and we're talking about a very special watch designed and built in a way that very few can... JLC is one of those few.
> 
> So for me, the fact that JLC has been maintaining this level of quality and design for so long, often referred to as the "watchmakers watch", known to make parts for many other high-end brands, known to be on the wrists of many PP watchmakers, etc., plus has the presence of mind to offer many models in steel, really makes JLC hard to beat -- ironically, offering more models in SS may also blind people into thinking they're not as high end as PP, etc., because SS means a lower entry price point when compared to PP, etc...
> 
> So to give my $0.02 to the OP question, I'd say if there is a more desirable brand, JLC's stiffest competition comes at the (much) higher price points, not the other way around... And even then, it'd be close!


LoL
You almost sold me on the Jaeger and I don't want it.

The Nomos as you describe is not remotely close to the same watch. I actually don't like their feel on at all. My wife thinks they look great and wants me to get one. I won't. I like your comparison though.


----------



## Spazz27

Watermark said:


> LoL
> You almost sold me on the Jaeger and I don't want it.


Lol... ?

...to me it's a really interesting watch, because its a contemporary watch (introduced this year), but it's a vintage too.

It recalls a time when making a thin watch was a major "grail", and so I think JLC is kind of sending a message with this watch... so while I don't necessarily want it either (because there are other JLCs I want more), I feel like sooner or later I *will* want one as I begin to get the message more and more... 



Watermark said:


> The Nomos as you describe is not remotely close to the same watch.


Tell Me about it!... not to mention the price difference is actually closer to $15k than $5k!


----------



## vysis

> Bic also makes $450-500 pens and Montegrappa, Montblanc make pens that are as low as $150-200.





> .maybe it's just me, because I work in design,





> _Maybe he wants to hear that Zenith, IWC, Rolex are better than JLC... tut tut tut not gonna happen here _





> Jaeger is not a luxury brand of watch like Omega Rolex and Zenith. They aren't comparable. They also aren't crap like Mercedes so please don't lump them into this group ever.











hahaha, the internet trying to tell me what Dunning-Kruger is... I find it even more ironic I'm accuse of _confirmation bias.

_Oh well, it's clear that I'm doing the equivalent of preaching evolution in Church.

It's also clear that most people are either not reading my posts or reading my posts with the sole intent of taking them apart out of context.

*So be it. *I was clearly wrong. JLC is the only right brand. They are also the most desirable brand on the planet. _But why do they sell so little?_ Clearly because anybody who doesn't wear a JLC can't afford it or have inferior taste compared to the enlightened ones here.

It's just a shame that when the Wristwatch apocalypse comes, a heathen like me and my Rolex wearing brothers won't be able to join you in JLC heaven!


----------



## systemcrasher

vysis said:


> Oh well, it's clear that I'm doing the equivalent of preaching evolution in Church.


No, Darwin had a solid research behind him. Not based on number of posts on ONE forum site.



vysis said:


> *So be it. *I was clearly wrong. JLC is the only right brand. They are also the most desirable brand on the planet.


No, I can think of few more that go toe to toe with JLC.. PP, ALC, AP, VC, Parmigiani, Breguet, Roger Dubois...shall I keep going? Just because you like to limit the comparisons to Zenith, IWC, Rolex and JLC doesn't mean other watch brands suddenly disappear off the charts.



vysis said:


> _But why do they sell so little?_ Clearly because anybody who doesn't wear a JLC can't afford it or have inferior taste compared to the enlightened ones here.


How do you know that they sell so little? Because not many posts are on the WUS forums? Most watch companies keep their numbers closely guarded. Rolex selling close to million per year and Omega 700k+ per year is purely based on an estimated number of watches they make per year via serial numbers. People think Rolex and Omega sell those numbers per year because they roughly churn out that many per year. People tend to forget that many "Brand New" watches could have been sitting in the shop for few years. Flooding the market doesn't mean everything that they put out there sells.

Even if some how you got the hard selling figures and you are basing your opinion on them, that alone doesn't speak for one brand's desirability.

Going to car comparisons, although many don't like it here, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Maybach sells much much less than BMW, Merc, Toyota, Huyndai, Ford, Nissan, Mazda, Chevvy.. doesn't mean the former brands are "less desirable".
For some, yeah sure. If you think the number of units sold are most important, than most desirable car company would be Toyota or Ford and most desirable car in the history of world would be Toyota Corolla. Goood for you.

Just don't try to convince me or others of that. I'd take one Ferrari or Lambo over 20 Toyota Corollas any day.

And don't make ridiculous "not in the same price bracket" excuse either. If you are going to compare brands, do it from top to bottom all inclusive, not in a limited bracket where you think you might have a case. Passing a judgement on a brand/company after only comparing models that cost few thousand dollars while ignoring the impeccable watches that sell for 6 figures, is just daft.

I might add, I own neither Rolex, Zenith, IWC or JLC. I based my opinion on these companies on their watch design - absolute foremost, reviews of watch including quality of movements, build quality, few bits of history and how they are priced. Not by how many they sell. To be honest, I sway away from models that sell by the thousands...

If you purely go by the sales figure and number of forum posts, I'd say Casio would be the most desirable watch brand in the world.


----------



## sheon

vysis said:


> hahaha, the internet trying to tell me what Dunning-Kruger is... I find it even more ironic I'm accuse of _confirmation bias.
> 
> _Oh well, it's clear that I'm doing the equivalent of preaching evolution in Church.
> 
> It's also clear that most people are either not reading my posts or reading my posts with the sole intent of taking them apart out of context.
> 
> *So be it. *I was clearly wrong. JLC is the only right brand. They are also the most desirable brand on the planet. _But why do they sell so little?_ Clearly because anybody who doesn't wear a JLC can't afford it or have inferior taste compared to the enlightened ones here.
> 
> It's just a shame that when the Wristwatch apocalypse comes, a heathen like me and my Rolex wearing brothers won't be able to join you in JLC heaven!


Rather than thinking you're a Galileo or Darwin going against the Church, why not consider the fact that most of us here are deeply convinced of JLC's position on the quality-price curve, and are merely trying to convince you of that?


----------



## dak_la

Spazz27 said:


> ...maybe it's just me, because I work in design, and am thinking design all the time, and its the subtle differences that are usually considered genius not the obvious ones... As such, besides the fact these two watches are both circles, I see absolutely nothing else the same or even similar.
> 
> ...and let me preface this by saying I am a HUGE Nomos fan... but under $5k.
> 
> The Nomos is pure Bauhaus, the Jubilee is no where near. At best it's closer to Art Deco... and while both styles are part of the "modern era/look" they are far from the same.
> 
> The bezel is completely different too... The Nomos, although very nice, doesn't have that very sharp profile (which doesn't translate well in photos), which dramatically alters the way it sits on the wrist.
> 
> And speaking of sitting on the wrist, the Nomos is fairly thin at 6.5mm, but still nearly 40% thicker because that particular JLC is only 4.05mm thick, and it's movement is 1.85mm thick. This makes the Jubilee one of the flattest mechanical watches in existence today!
> 
> ... and forget about the fact the Jubilee is made of platinum too, and we're talking about a very special watch designed and built in a way that very few can... JLC is one of those few.
> 
> So for me, the fact that JLC has been maintaining this level of quality and design for so long, often referred to as the "watchmakers watch", known to make parts for many other high-end brands, known to be on the wrists of many PP watchmakers, etc., plus has the presence of mind to offer many models in steel, really makes JLC hard to beat -- ironically, offering more models in SS may also blind people into thinking they're not as high end as PP, etc., because SS means a lower entry price point when compared to PP, etc...
> 
> So to give my $0.02 to the OP question, I'd say if there is a more desirable brand, JLC's stiffest competition comes at the (much) higher price points, not the other way around... And even then, it'd be close!


You are a great enabler Spazz :-! How's your master geo treating you?

Daniel


----------



## Spazz27

Hey Daniel,

In short: Amazing!

As you know, and I have mentioned, I first handled a JLC when I picked mine up! ...but I am so sure of myself when I choose things, I wasn't worried... but let me tell you, once it was in my hands, wow!

It reminded me of a certain automobile purchase, because like it, pictures can not translate properly the proportions, or the feel. Pictures address the sense of site, but is very hard (even video for that matter) to address the others.

So, I'm blown away... its dead accurate, absolutely precise in every detail, smooth in its functions, the absolute perfect size... again referring to the automobile purchase, it makes me wonder if this particular model is so damn good (and Im sure I'd feel the same regardless of model I would have bought), how good are all the other higher-end JLCs???

Only one way to find out (I hope)


----------



## Spazz27

...and back to enabling 

*"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you know nothing about." Dyer, Wayne*

To remedy that a little, here's some reading material (suggested to me by Daniel when I asked for advice): Jaeger-LeCoultre Discussion Forum: In search of the perfect movement, Autotractor first used in Home Time and Dualmatic!

...and a funny story from my ad agency days, because the idea that "sales" or "interest/popularity" alone _proves_ quality is absolute bogus, 100%:

I used to work with a person who used to be the head of Louis Vuitton, San Francisco... one season, LV launched a new bag that was an atrocity, literally: it was badly made and really ugly.

He decided to display only 1 bag in the showroom at a time, and then he *doubled* the price - which was the *key* to his strategy, i.e. make it more exclusive somehow...

That ugly potato sack sold like hot cakes... one at a time! lol...

Why? ...because he understood people bought LV marketing more than the bags themselves, and if he could convince people they were buying something high-end (i.e., it had to be because it was soo expensive), and exclusive (i.e., it must have been since there was only one left in the store), his work was half done!

We laughed and laughed with that one... but think about _that_ the next time you're thinking about buying an $8k watch with $300 ETA movements in it


----------



## sacred

This is how I would rank public perception of most desirable watches by brand:

1. Patek Philippe
2. Vacheron Constantin/Audemars Piguet
4. Breguet
5. A. Lang and Sohne
6. JLC

So, to answer the OP's question, 1-5 would all be generally more desirable. Personally, I am not a big fan of Vacheron or Audemars but would definitely take the Patek, Breguet, or A. Lang and Sohne over the JLC. But, for the price point, JLC is probably the best relative value in all of luxury watch making. It's an absolutely phenomenal brand at an extremely fair price point. 

Brands that I would put under JLC would be:

7. Ulysse Nardin (excepting their super high end watches)
8. Blancpain
9. Rolex
10. IWC
11. Zenith
12. Glashutte Original
13. Cartier
14. Omega
15. Breitling
etc.


----------



## lp1974

sacred said:


> This is how I would rank public perception of most desirable watches by brand:
> 
> 1. Patek Philippe
> 2. Vacheron Constantin/Audemars Piguet
> 4. Breguet
> 5. A. Lang and Sohne
> 6. JLC
> 
> So, to answer the OP's question, 1-5 would all be generally more desirable. Personally, I am not a big fan of Vacheron or Audemars but would definitely take the Patek, Breguet, or A. Lang and Sohne over the JLC. But, for the price point, JLC is probably the best relative value in all of luxury watch making. It's an absolutely phenomenal brand at an extremely fair price point.
> 
> Brands that I would put under JLC would be:
> 
> 7. Ulysse Nardin (excepting their super high end watches)
> 8. Blancpain
> 9. Rolex
> 10. IWC
> 11. Zenith
> 12. Glashutte Original
> 13. Cartier
> 14. Omega
> 15. Breitling
> etc.


if you put horological value/ history vs price; i wouldn't put rolex above zenith, glashuttte or omega.
if it's general public perception, rolex will rank no. 1. i know of people who will take a rolex 
over a JLC....i hope to be next to them when they make a choice.


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. The perception of the typical man on the street who knows little about watches is that a Rolex is the greatest watch ever made and a Grand Seiko Spring Drive must have cost $149.99 at the Seiko discount mall shop. LOL!!


----------



## lp1974

Spazz27 said:


> ...and back to enabling
> 
> *"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you know nothing about." Dyer, Wayne*
> 
> To remedy that a little, here's some reading material (suggested to me by Daniel when I asked for advice): Jaeger-LeCoultre Discussion Forum: In search of the perfect movement, Autotractor first used in Home Time and Dualmatic!
> 
> ...and a funny story from my ad agency days, because the idea that "sales" or "interest/popularity" alone _proves_ quality is absolute bogus, 100%:
> 
> I used to work with a person who used to be the head of Louis Vuitton, San Francisco... one season, LV launched a new bag that was an atrocity, literally: it was badly made and really ugly.
> 
> He decided to display only 1 bag in the showroom at a time, and then he *doubled* the price - which was the *key* to his strategy, i.e. make it more exclusive somehow...
> 
> That ugly potato sack sold like hot cakes... one at a time! lol...
> 
> Why? ...because he understood people bought LV marketing more than the bags themselves, and if he could convince people they were buying something high-end (i.e., it had to be because it was soo expensive), and exclusive (i.e., it must have been since there was only one left in the store), his work was half done!
> 
> We laughed and laughed with that one... but think about _that_ the next time you're thinking about buying an $8k watch with $300 ETA movements in it


i cannot agree more. being in sales & marketing, i see that everyday. perception is key, and its hardwired into us humans. the only logic we can
attempt is to put a perceived value to things. why invest in technology at all or try to balance resource between R&D and marketing? if one can focus all the fire power to get a few celebrities to wear it, and flood every back page of every magazine of significant following and relevance. that is why i find rolex such a magnificent company. in an ideal world, i will invest in rolex but wear a JLC or AP. that is only my opinion..


----------



## Spazz27

lp1974 said:


> ...in an ideal world, i will invest in rolex but wear a JLC or AP. that is only my opinion..


Absolutely!... and lets not forget one of the best Rolex examples of their marketing prowess: The Everest Expeditions!

It is now common knowledge that Sir Edmond Hilary had a Smith's watch with him too, but who knew?

Smith's did not market this at all, certainly no where near the way Rolex did as the sponsors, etc., and the rest - as they say - is history... unfortunately, so was the Smiths brand!

...but what if Smiths had done am equally great job marketing?


----------



## avaxis

More desirable brand than JLC? None so far. I know there's AP, VC and PP out there. But no thanks. Maybe if I wanted a dive watch it would be the Fifty Fathoms, or if I really dive I'd get a Suunto Dive Computer instead.

The fact that the mighty trinity of AP, VC and PP, ALL used Jaeger supplied/designed/manufactured movement 1 point in time is reason enough that makes JLC desirable to me -- in fact some are still in use today e.g. VC 1120. So if I'm wearing a JLC, and a snob wearing a PP comes along and scots at my JLC showing his brand prowess. I just tell myself that the man only have money to spend and knows nothing about watches. And I need only to smile. As they say, money can't buy class.

The real question is. Are you buying a watch or are you buying a brand? JLC is desirable because of what they do, and what they do is making watches. I don't consider an entity buying a movement from another watch maker, making modifications to said movement and sticking it in a case as "watch making". Maybe "watch assembling" at best. If I bought a kit car, assembled it and sold it, it still doesn't make me a car manufacturer.

I bought a Tag Heuer Carrera as a daily beater, but I wasn't buying a watch. I bought it for the design, for the brand association with racing, with cars, the fact that it is well known, and the fact that it did not have an older demographic of owners like Rolex does. And most important of all, you don't even need to wear it right to look right!

Now I want to buy a watch, JLC is that brand. For lack of a better way to put it, Jaeger is the company other "watch makers" turn to when they don't know how to make a watch.

Rolex don't make watches, Rolex sells a "crown for every achievement". And back when they didn't know how to make one they called Zenith. Good call. I do have plans to buy a crown one day, for my other half.
Patek sells family heirlooms.
Panerai sells snake oils.

As for the brick wall who is saying otherwise, here's some facts.

In 2008 US advertising spend
Rolex Leads U.S. Watch Advertiser Pack | WATCHTIME.COM
#1 Rolex $49.3 million
#3 Tag Heuer $25.97 million
#6 Omega $14.59 million
#12 Patek $6.69 million
#13 IWC $5.75 million
*#23 Jaeger $3.34 million*

In 2012, Middle East advertising spend
MPP-ME LLC- Latest Business News on the Jewellery & Watch World in the Middle East
Newspapers
#1 Rolex
#4 Omega
#5 AP
#6 PP

Magazines
#1 Rolex
#3 PP
#4 Omega

Jaeger doesn't even make it to the list in Middle East. What does that show? Jaeger isn't advertising that much. Even Longines spend more. Just like how Ferrari need not advertise like a Toyota. Yet, it still sells. What does that tell you?


----------



## lp1974

i differ on the automobile analogy.... a rolex is not a toyota, price, value or perceived brand status. nor is JLC a ferrari. toyota is basic, reliable and cheap like a citizen. JLC is like a mercedes, reliable, fantastic luxury and tech, expensive but good value.
fact is there will be no car like a rolex.
a reliable car, with a good and reliable engine, average designs, and little tech... but priced like a mercedes/bmw. 
thats where you start admiring rolex as a company. consumer choice is consumer choice... its personal. no matter how dumb one may sound


----------



## gwsudiro

JLC is my most favourite high end _"normal"_ watches out there....:-! at least for now...

More desirable than JLC ?? it will fits into _"abnormal"_ category.....for me, it's an *Urwerk*..:-d

just my opinion..

best regards
Galih


----------



## runr986

lp1974 said:


> i differ on the automobile analogy.... a rolex is not a toyota, price, value or perceived brand status. nor is JLC a ferrari. toyota is basic, reliable and cheap like a citizen. JLC is like a mercedes, reliable, fantastic luxury and tech, expensive but good value.
> fact is there will be no car like a rolex.
> a reliable car, with a good and reliable engine, average designs, and little tech... but priced like a mercedes/bmw.
> thats where you start admiring rolex as a company. consumer choice is consumer choice... its personal. no matter how dumb one may sound


doing the automobile analogy, i always thought of rolex as a lexus. jlc-bmw, iwc-audi, breguet-mercedes benz, pp-bentley, ap-porsche. jmho


----------



## Spazz27

runr986 said:


> doing the automobile analogy, i always thought of rolex as a lexus. jlc-bmw, iwc-audi, breguet-mercedes benz, pp-bentley, ap-porsche. jmho


...so using that watch:car analogy, since when did AP become a watch (brand) light years better than a PP?


----------



## lp1974

haha...interesting. i choose to refer to them as a class, not specific brands. obviously 
every brand has their strengths. even rolex or a "lowly" citizen when you need them.  i will depend on a rolex to impress the elderly in-laws and a citizen to go for a jungle trekking.
but i do agree ... bentley?? hehe... probably rolex fits a bentley more than a lexus. spending more money for lower design, tech and performance... but loud and ultra attention seeking. a matter of choice.


----------



## GaryF

PP = RR. No one buys them because they are _good_. They buy them because the _are.
_


Spazz27 said:


> ...so using that watch:car analogy, since when did AP become a watch (brand) light years better than a PP?


----------



## kkchome

A very interesting thread and great reading with my morning coffee. Of course this kind of discussion is purely subjective, as are many of the fine things in life. Personally, I put JLC very high on the spectrum of desirability,despite never having owned one personally. I find them very high on the value for money scale and love the fact that most of their models are also available in stainless steel. I can also see why many people are not interested in their design aesthetic. This makes the models that sing to me even more desirable. The master home time and MUT are on my short list for a watch purchase at the end of this year, along with a AP Royal Oak or a VC Overseas Chronograph. I still haven't made up my mind.I find the Rolex bashing a bit interesting. I am not sure if the bashing of the watches themselves is warranted, but everybody is entitled to their opinion. I love both of my Rolexes and wear them regularly, especially the 14060. That being said, I do not put Rolex in the same league as JLC.


----------



## Skitalets

I was merely amused by this thread when it started, though a Reverso was high on my list of desired watches. 

Now that I own my (first, hopefully of several) Reversos, my only answer is "no." Eventually want to add a couple more Reversos, a vintage Memovox, and maybe a MUT. 

Still don't like their dive watches, however.


----------



## lp1974

kkchome said:


> master home time and MUT are on my short list for a watch purchase at the end of this year, along with a AP Royal Oak or a VC Overseas Chronograph. I still haven't made up my mind.I find the Rolex bashing a bit interesting. I am not sure if the bashing of the watches themselves is warranted, but everybody is entitled to their . That being said, I do not put Rolex in the same league as JLC.


good taste on JLC and AP RO. i used to own a couple of rolexs but when i got to know more about other brands i started selling them away to finance new purchases.... esp JLC. the myth that rolex holds value was instantly shattered. any watch one buy at retail, 95% of the case its depreciation all the way. including rolexs.
it is only when i started trying my hand at fixing vintages that i found the quality of some other makes quite amazing. top on the list is JLC. i have a bumper JLC that had not been serviced for 2 decades and its still going at - 10secs every 24hr. thats when i made the comparison to my rolexs and i think i never looked back since. so when someone bashes a rolex i dont think its warranted but i can somehow understand why...


----------



## exoticwatches

lp1974 said:


> good taste on JLC and AP RO. i used to own a couple of rolexs but when i got to know more about other brands i started selling them away to finance new purchases.... esp JLC. the myth that rolex holds value was instantly shattered. any watch one buy at retail, 95% of the case its depreciation all the way. including rolexs.
> it is only when i started trying my hand at fixing vintages that i found the quality of some other makes quite amazing. top on the list is JLC. i have a bumper JLC that had not been serviced for 2 decades and its still going at - 10secs every 24hr. thats when i made the comparison to my rolexs and i think i never looked back since. so when someone bashes a rolex i dont think its warranted but i can somehow understand why...


You are lucky you got such a good piece ... a JLC would last a generation .... maybe 2 .. but Rolex's are built to last for generations ..... watches handed down from grandfathers are being used by their nephews and nieces now .... Would the JLC be able to take that kind of wear and tear over say 30-40-50 years ? A Rolex Explorer 1 would certainly be more robust than a JLC Master Control ....


----------



## rightrower

A jlc diver is on my list. More desirable than jlc = a watch that speak to you.


----------



## GaryF

Really? I'd be interested to know what you are basing this on.


exoticwatches said:


> You are lucky you got such a good piece ... a JLC would last a generation .... maybe 2 .. but Rolex's are built to last for generations ..... watches handed down from grandfathers are being used by their nephews and nieces now .... Would the JLC be able to take that kind of wear and tear over say 30-40-50 years ? A Rolex Explorer 1 would certainly be more robust than a JLC Master Control ....


----------



## Spazz27

exoticwatches said:


> You are lucky you got such a good piece ... a JLC would last a generation .... maybe 2 .. but Rolex's are built to last for generations .....


That's laughable! Lol


----------



## exoticwatches

GaryF said:


> Really? I'd be interested to know what you are basing this on.


Collective experience and wisdom of the millions of "stupid" people who keep buying Rolex watches every year and swear by them.


----------



## Starbuk

exoticwatches said:


> Collective experience and wisdom of the millions of "stupid" people who keep buying Rolex watches every year and swear by them.


You don't see the dozens of holes in your statements? Why would a watch maker make a product that won't last for a long long time if serviced and cared for properly? What is it specifically that Rolex is doing that jlc is not?


----------



## Spazz27

Starbuk said:


> What is it specifically that Rolex is doing that jlc is not?


Its not what Rolex does, but rather what they don't/can't do: their most complicated watch is a chronograph (although they can thank Zenith for that!)... Their technical capabilities stop where others like JLC start.

Quartz watches tend to last for generations too... as do digital photographs (as opposed to classic works of painted art), a FIAT will last longer than a Ferrari (if not properly serviced or maintained as you noted), etc...

And for Rolex, a mass-produced product (about to hit 1 million watches per year), it's a necessity and marketing Genius, because as the poster just said, there at millions of stupid people who keep buying them...


----------



## Spazz27

...I should also add that I actually like Rolex, just not new ones (60% over priced), but rather vintage Rolex from the 50's and 60's, or with an El Primero motor...


----------



## GaryF

Spazz27 said:


> there at millions of stupid people who keep buying them...


I don't think that's entirely fair but, given the amount of Rolexes that have been sold over the years along with their used value, you would expect to see a lot of them around and being passed on. You won't see so many old JLCs because, frankly, there never _were _so many. 
To conclude from this that they are not so well made is, to put it mildly, to not fully understand the nature of either brand. After all, a large proportion of the JLCs that I see are vintage pieces that have survived at least two generations.


----------



## exoticwatches

Starbuk said:


> You don't see the dozens of holes in your statements? Why would a watch maker make a product that won't last for a long long time if serviced and cared for properly? What is it specifically that Rolex is doing that jlc is not?


I have, for not even a second, ever cast a doubt on JLC's watch making capablities. They make fine DAINTY sophisticated & aristocratic time pieces with elegant and ethereal movements in them. They are works of art.

But you my friend have exactly highlighted the point I have been trying to make - They need to be serviced at regular intervals and cared for properly. And "regularly" means at a pretty frequent interval than what say the "poor mans" watch Rolex needs. And these servicings cost a bomb too. Rolex servicing also costs a huge amount of $$$ but that you need to do that once in say 10-12 years, not every 3-4-5 years. Just my 0.02$


----------



## Dixan

exoticwatches said:


> I have, for not even a second, ever cast a doubt on JLC's watch making capablities. They make fine DAINTY sophisticated & aristocratic time pieces with elegant and ethereal movements in them. They are works of art.
> 
> But you my friend have exactly highlighted the point I have been trying to make - They need to be serviced at regular intervals and cared for properly. And "regularly" means at a pretty frequent interval than what say the "poor mans" watch Rolex needs. And these servicings cost a bomb too. Rolex servicing also costs a huge amount of $$$ but that you need to do that once in say 10-12 years, not every 3-4-5 years. Just my 0.02$


Do yourself a favor and look up "Autotractor movement." "DAINTY"? Yeah... Uh, no. Sorry, you're simply wrong.


----------



## Dixan

Spazz27 said:


> That's laughable! Lol


Yup. This guy's clueless. Years from now, he'll look back and be embarrassed by his statements here now.


----------



## GaryF

The recommended service interval for both brands is a roughly the same and is dictated mainly by the life of the lubricants used. Also, modern Rolex movements have elements which mean that they would be less likely to tolerate the neglect that enabled their forbears to build their reputation for hardiness. I wouldn't want to leave mine for twenty years without lubrication the winding system, for example. There is a pillar which is susceptible to wear and it is welded to the baseplate meaning that a replacement is a large and expensive job.



exoticwatches said:


> But you my friend have exactly highlighted the point I have been trying to make - They need to be serviced at regular intervals and cared for properly. And "regularly" means at a pretty frequent interval than what say the "poor mans" watch Rolex needs. And these servicings cost a bomb too. Rolex servicing also costs a huge amount of $$$ but that you need to do that once in say 10-12 years, not every 3-4-5 years. Just my 0.02$


----------



## exoticwatches

GaryF said:


> The recommended service interval for both brands is a roughly the same and is dictated mainly by the life of the lubricants used. Also, modern Rolex movements have elements which mean that they would be less likely to tolerate the neglect that enabled their forbears to build their reputation for hardiness. I wouldn't want to leave mine for twenty years without lubrication the winding system, for example. There is a pillar which is susceptible to wear and it is welded to the baseplate meaning that a replacement is a large and expensive job.


So you are saying that the JLC MC ref. *1548420 *with the Calibre 899 movement inside is an Autotractor movement ?

BTW, Rolex has been again voted the SuperBrand, leaving behind lot of its competitors, again this year.


----------



## GaryF

exoticwatches said:


> So you are saying that the JLC MC ref. *1548420 *with the Calibre 899 movement inside is an Autotractor movement ?


I wasn't but, if you are asking, it has some elements of the Autractor movements such as the unidirectional winding and ceramic bearing but is still thin enough to fit into dress cases.



> BTW, Rolex has been again voted the SuperBrand, leaving behind lot of its competitors, again this year.


This means nothing to me, I'm afraid. I'm interested in watches.


----------



## exoticwatches

GaryF said:


> I wasn't but, if you are asking, it has some elements of the Autractor movements such as the unidirectional winding and ceramic bearing but is still thin enough to fit into dress cases.


No disrespect to JLC and their prowess to build such wonderful time pieces ... but I guess for now I would stick to the time tested 3132 inhouse movement of Rolex rather than on a movement having "some elements" of a well certified movement (autotractor) and not ALL of it. Maybe in future when I have enough to spare again I will definitely look into JLC MC as the looks surely mesmerise me.


----------



## systemcrasher

lol still going eh??



exoticwatches said:


> BTW, Rolex has been again voted the SuperBrand, leaving behind lot of its competitors, again this year.


But I understand that it was just in UK, I'm sure as hell it wasn't a World Wide vote.

And just for little fun, lets compare top 10 most expensive watches by two brands...

*1: 1942 Rolex Chronograph (1.1 million) vs JLC Joaillerie 101 Manchette (Priceless)
*Only 12 were made, sure it's a classic but not that special when it comes to technical feat. Meanwhile, this gift to Queen Elizabeth II holds the record for smallest mechanical movement - Winner, JLC

*2: Eric Clapton's 1971 Rolex Daytona ($500k) vs JLC Hybris Mechanica Grande Sonnerie ($2.5 million)*
Take Eric Clapton out of that name and watch the price drop like stone. While JLC is a minute repeater with 1300 parts and 26 complications - Winner, JLC

*3: Rolex GMT 116769TBR ($485k) vs JLC Master Grand Tourbillon ($680k)*
Take out 76 diamonds from the Rolex, watch the price sink quicker than Titanic. Other than the glitter, pretty mundane. JLC features engraving, enameling and tourbillon - Winner, JLC

*4: James Bond 1973 Rolex 5513 ($450k) vs JLC reverso Compication a Triptyque ($600k)*
This Rolex does not have any functions that Roger Moore uses in Live and Let Die. JLC does have 3 faces, considered one of the most complicated wristwatches ever made. Functions including perpetual calendar, sunrise and sunset indicators, tourbillon escapement, zodiac indicator as well as celestial start chart - Winner JLC

*5: Dr. Rjendrad Prasad's Gold Rolex Oyster ($440k) vs JLC Gyrotourbillon ($400k)*
Yay this Rolex was worn by the first president of India. Other than that and being solid gold, not much merit. Gyrotourbillon. Need I say more? Winner, JLC

*6: Rolex Platinum Pearlmaster ($276k) vs JLC Master Minute Repeater 1833 ($390k)*
Minute Repeater. I repeat, Minute Repeater. Winner, JLC

*7: Paul Newman Red Rolex Daytona ($267k) vs JLC Grande Tradition Grande Complication ($365k)*
Chronograph vs 24hour displaying tourbillon minute repeater - Winner, JLC

*8: Steve McQueen Rolex Submariner ($234k) vs JLC Reverso Gyrotourbillon 2 ($350k)*
A Submariner vs double-axis tourbillon with cylindrical hairspring. Made up of 373 parts and 58 jewels with power reserve of 50 hours - Winner, JLC

*9: Paul Newman Black Rolex Daytona ($106k) vs JLC Grande Traditon Tourbillon Quantieme Perpetual ($138k)*
Chronograph vs Tourbillon powered perpetual calendar with year, month, day, date and moonphase - Winner, JLC

*10: Rolex Submariner for Cartier ($100k) vs JLC Duometre a Quantieme Lunaire ($100k)*
This Rolex tells time and date. This JLC tells time, date, moonage as well as moonphase also has dual wing system. All parts are hand finished - Winner, JLC

Notice that 6 out of 10 most expensive Rolexes are related to a celebrity or famous person? The premium you pay on these Rolexes are more or less due to celebrity connections. JLC's premium comes from functionality, technicality and execution. In pretty much all aspects of watch making, JLC wipes the floor with Rolex. Even if you pitted these JLCs against the best of haute horology world has to offer, I don't see too many models trumping JLC models 2-9.

Rolex is like a car with 4 gears while JLC has 8 gears. As mentioned above, it's like when Rolex is running out of puff, JLC is just warming up and getting ready to really shift.

edit: Just read your comment on "time tested" Rolex movement. JLC was founded in 1833, Rolex in 1905. 180 vs 108 years.. I go with "time tested" company.


----------



## lp1974

exoticwatches said:


> You are lucky you got such a good piece ... a JLC would last a generation .... maybe 2 .. but Rolex's are built to last for generations ..... watches handed down from grandfathers are being used by their nephews and nieces now .... Would the JLC be able to take that kind of wear and tear over say 30-40-50 years ? A Rolex Explorer 1 would certainly be more robust than a JLC Master Control ....


it really depends. i buy rolexes to sell because its easier to sell. im being honest, half the people who i sold to, knows nothing of watches. the first question they ask is " i heard the value goes up!". i always try to explain but i gave up after a while. i have also seen pretty beat up rolexes of a few years. 
its not logical to say a rolex on a oil rig vs office worker to last the same. 
i think there is no comparison with JLC.
they are marketed differently. 
like i said before. i will wear anything from a AP and JLC to a seiko but i will definitely invest in rolex- the company.


----------



## exoticwatches

systemcrasher said:


> lol still going eh??
> 
> But I understand that it was just in UK, I'm sure as hell it wasn't a World Wide vote.
> 
> And just for little fun, lets compare top 10 most expensive watches by two brands...
> 
> Notice that 6 out of 10 most expensive Rolexes are related to a celebrity or famous person? The premium you pay on these Rolexes are more or less due to celebrity connections. JLC's premium comes from functionality, technicality and execution. In pretty much all aspects of watch making, JLC wipes the floor with Rolex. Even if you pitted these JLCs against the best of haute horology world has to offer, I don't see too many models trumping JLC models 2-9.
> 
> Rolex is like a car with 4 gears while JLC has 8 gears. As mentioned above, it's like when Rolex is running out of puff, JLC is just warming up and getting ready to really shift.
> 
> edit: Just read your comment on "time tested" Rolex movement. JLC was founded in 1833, Rolex in 1905. 180 vs 108 years.. I go with "time tested" company.


Your notings are well accepted my friend. But how many times do we (rational drivers) use the 6th, 7th or 8th gear (if they exist) in a car on a freeway let alone in full traffic ? I am happy with my 4 front and 1 reverse as long as the engine is not a fuel guzzler in today's economic scenario ....

Similarly how many people do their business and daily routine by "moonphase" ? Minute repeaters, Gyrotourbillons, zodiac indicators, sunrise & sunset indicators, 1000-2000 part complications - all sound very dandy. But how many of such watch owners actually use them in their everyday life activities ?

"Practical" people who appreciate good mechanical time pieces want a good watch to tell them time accurately 24/7 ... whether they be swimming, showering, working out, in a business meet, flying, driving, eating, drinking, doing whatever and not having to worry of disrupting or damaging the immensely expensive mechanical wizardry sitting on their wrists if they accidentally bang their hands down on the table in a heated argument or just in mere jest while having a hearty laugh on a good joke or hit it against a table corner or bang it against the wall.

JLC time pieces are definitely the ones with the bigger complications and higher number of moving parts with mind boggling mastery of horology personified, a lot of prestige and ancestry ..... But where Rolex overtakes JLC is "RUGGEDNESS". For all practical purposes they make good reliable mechanical watches with sturdy movements (like the 31XX movements) with a significant brand value and heritage, and appreciable value retention capacity (I understand there be a debate on this issue too). Rolex is the primary go to for all strata of watch lovers - Presidents, Celebrities, Movie Stars, Sports Personalities and then the "common" watch lovers like myself ;-) .

Love it or hate it .. you cannot ignore Rolex ....  ... Rolex does a pretty good job of helping people keep time efficiently in a stylish and dignified way and that is why it is always amongst the top 3 choices of even all hardcore horologists besides laymen watch aficionados.

But yes if you are having a Rolex or 2 already in your repertoire and want to add a watch of higher prestige value (but cannot yet afford the APs or PPs) then JLC does have a wide range on offer in the Rolex price range and even I would then personally choose JLC MC.

But for now am saving up for the Explorer 1


----------



## Dixan

exoticwatches said:


> Your notings are well accepted my friend. But how many times do we (rational drivers) use the 6th, 7th or 8th gear (if they exist) in a car on a freeway let alone in full traffic ? I am happy with my 4 front and 1 reverse as long as the engine is not a fuel guzzler in today's economic scenario ....
> 
> Similarly how many people do their business and daily routine by "moonphase" ? Minute repeaters, Gyrotourbillons, zodiac indicators, sunrise & sunset indicators, 1000-2000 part complications - all sound very dandy. But how many of such watch owners actually use them in their everyday life activities ?
> 
> "Practical" people who appreciate good mechanical time pieces want a good watch to tell them time accurately 24/7 ... whether they be swimming, showering, working out, in a business meet, flying, driving, eating, drinking, doing whatever and not having to worry of disrupting or damaging the immensely expensive mechanical wizardry sitting on their wrists if they accidentally bang their hands down on the table in a heated argument or just in mere jest while having a hearty laugh on a good joke or hit it against a table corner or bang it against the wall.
> 
> JLC time pieces are definitely the ones with the bigger complications and higher number of moving parts with mind boggling mastery of horology personified, a lot of prestige and ancestry ..... But where Rolex overtakes JLC is "RUGGEDNESS". For all practical purposes they make good reliable mechanical watches with sturdy movements (like the 31XX movements) with a significant brand value and heritage, and appreciable value retention capacity (I understand there be a debate on this issue too). Rolex is the primary go to for all strata of watch lovers - Presidents, Celebrities, Movie Stars, Sports Personalities and then the "common" watch lovers like myself ;-) .
> 
> Love it or hate it .. you cannot ignore Rolex ....  ... Rolex does a pretty good job of helping people keep time efficiently in a stylish and dignified way and that is why it is always amongst the top 3 choices of even all hardcore horologists besides laymen watch aficionados.
> 
> But yes if you are having a Rolex or 2 already in your repertoire and want to add a watch of higher prestige value (but cannot yet afford the APs or PPs) then JLC does have a wide range on offer in the Rolex price range and even I would then personally choose JLC MC.
> 
> But for now am saving up for the Explorer 1


Again, "ruggedness" is not necessarily an indicator of quality.


----------



## systemcrasher

exoticwatches said:


> Your notings are well accepted my friend. But how many times do we (rational drivers) use the 6th, 7th or 8th gear (if they exist) in a car on a freeway let alone in full traffic ? I am happy with my 4 front and 1 reverse as long as the engine is not a fuel guzzler in today's economic scenario ....


My Renault has 6th gear. I don't use 4th, 5th, 6th gear on normal roads because at the end of 3rd gear I'm already doing 140km/h. On tracks, it needs all 6 gears. It's all about having the option of going higher. :-d JLC provides this option of going higher. Rolex does not.



exoticwatches said:


> Similarly how many people do their business and daily routine by "moonphase" ? Minute repeaters, Gyrotourbillons, zodiac indicators, sunrise & sunset indicators, 1000-2000 part complications - all sound very dandy. But how many of such watch owners actually use them in their everyday life activities ?


Okay... For Rolex watches, other than telling time and day, date, I can't think of any special functions other than water resistance or GMT function... so do all Rolex Submariner owners dive down to 100meters everyday? I mean after all, that's the function of Submariner right? Or do all Rolex Explorer GMT owners jump between timezones on daily basis? Oh sorry, forgot about the chrono functions and I forever see Rolex Chrono owners sitting there measuring times...

Sometimes less is more, but this time, less is less.



exoticwatches said:


> "Practical" people who appreciate good mechanical time pieces want a good watch to tell them time accurately 24/7 ... whether they be swimming, showering, working out, in a business meet, flying, driving, eating, drinking, doing whatever and not having to worry of disrupting or damaging the immensely expensive mechanical wizardry sitting on their wrists if they accidentally bang their hands down on the table in a heated argument or just in mere jest while having a hearty laugh on a good joke or hit it against a table corner or bang it against the wall.
> 
> JLC time pieces are definitely the ones with the bigger complications and higher number of moving parts with mind boggling mastery of horology personified, a lot of prestige and ancestry ..... But where Rolex overtakes JLC is "RUGGEDNESS". For all practical purposes they make good reliable mechanical watches with sturdy movements (like the 31XX movements) with a significant brand value and heritage, and appreciable value retention capacity (I understand there be a debate on this issue too). Rolex is the primary go to for all strata of watch lovers - Presidents, Celebrities, Movie Stars, Sports Personalities and then the "common" watch lovers like myself ;-) .


Real "practical" people who wants time accuracy will get quartz. I bet my $300 G-Shock will absolutely shame any Rolexes out there when it comes to "Ruggedness". I'm willing to kick the .... out of my G-Shock against a brick wall if you are willing to kick the .... out of your rugged Rolex and see which comes out on top ;-) I got my money on the G-Shock and if G-Shock does end up being more rugged, does it suddenly mean Casio G-Shock is more desirable that Rolex??

Sure Rolex is primary go to for those peeps you mentioned. But most of these people also go for Toyota Prius (especially movie stars and celebrities). So does this make Toyota more desirable than say BMW or Merc? Hardly. These famous people get certain things so they can be seen in a better light (ohhh he/she cares about the environment:roll or simply because they are sponsored. And most "common" watch lovers get Rolex because so and so has one....:-x



exoticwatches said:


> Love it or hate it .. you cannot ignore Rolex ....  ... Rolex does a pretty good job of helping people keep time efficiently in a stylish and dignified way and that is why it is always amongst the top 3 choices of even all hardcore horologists besides laymen watch aficionados.


I don't love or hate Rolex. I don't ignore Rolex either. I just wish that Rolex owners would wake up, smell the roses and realise that Rolex does not have the last word on watchmaking. Much like many Tag owners out there thinking Tag is on par with Omega or Rolex...:roll:



exoticwatches said:


> But yes if you are having a Rolex or 2 already in your repertoire and want to add a watch of higher prestige value (but cannot yet afford the APs or PPs) then JLC does have a wide range on offer in the Rolex price range and even I would then personally choose JLC MC.
> But for now am saving up for the Explorer 1


I'm saving up for a VC Quai de-Lile b-) I can't bring myself to get any Rolexes because I literally see at least 1-2 of them everyday and that's a quite day... I was in the CBD yesterday looking at some wallets at LV, Burberry and Prada... If I got a dollar for every Sub and Daytona I saw on the streets, I reckon I literally would've paid $100 less for the wallet...


----------



## exoticwatches

systemcrasher said:


> . :-d JLC provides this option of going higher. Rolex does not.
> 
> Okay... For Rolex watches, other than telling time and day, date, I can't think of any special functions other than water resistance or GMT function... so do all Rolex Submariner owners dive down to 100meters everyday? I mean after all, that's the function of Submariner right? Or do all Rolex Explorer GMT owners jump between timezones on daily basis? Oh sorry, forgot about the chrono functions and I forever see Rolex Chrono owners sitting there measuring times...
> 
> Sometimes less is more, but this time, less is less.
> 
> Real "practical" people who wants time accuracy will get quartz. I bet my $300 G-Shock will absolutely shame any Rolexes out there when it comes to "Ruggedness". I'm willing to kick the .... out of my G-Shock against a brick wall if you are willing to kick the .... out of your rugged Rolex and see which comes out on top ;-) I got my money on the G-Shock and if G-Shock does end up being more rugged, does it suddenly mean Casio G-Shock is more desirable that Rolex??
> 
> Sure Rolex is primary go to for those peeps you mentioned. But most of these people also go for Toyota Prius (especially movie stars and celebrities). So does this make Toyota more desirable than say BMW or Merc? Hardly. These famous people get certain things so they can be seen in a better light (ohhh he/she cares about the environment:roll or simply because they are sponsored. And most "common" watch lovers get Rolex because so and so has one....:-x
> 
> I don't love or hate Rolex. I don't ignore Rolex either. I just wish that Rolex owners would wake up, smell the roses and realise that Rolex does not have the last word on watchmaking. Much like many Tag owners out there thinking Tag is on par with Omega or Rolex...:roll:
> 
> I'm saving up for a VC Quai de-Lile b-) I can't bring myself to get any Rolexes because I literally see at least 1-2 of them everyday and that's a quite day... I was in the CBD yesterday looking at some wallets at LV, Burberry and Prada... If I got a dollar for every Sub and Daytona I saw on the streets, I reckon I literally would've paid $100 less for the wallet...


Well there have been a lot of "retired" divers now who have extensively used Subs for diving ... yess currently there would be much lesser number of divers who would be using their expensive Subs for diving purposes. But they are still in use for that purpose though in a much limited way. And amongst GMT 2 C owners - global travellers & pilots - still do refer to their wrists sometimes to track the time back home vis-a-vis their place of visit. But surely "MoonPhase" ? What do you use it for ? Predicting high tides & low tides ? Perhaps it will come in handy if there is a nuke war and we all go back to the dark ages ;-) ... though very very limited chances of that nowadays.

But all said and done I did state earlier that JLCs are definitely the watches with more complicated movements and prestige value than Rolex. But by "RUGGEDNESS" I mean the more sturdier build quality of Rolex VS JLC in the *mechanical watches category* .... Rolex is definitely not the last word in watchmaking as the revered Patek surely takes the cake in my HO followed by VC, JLC and AP. Yess somehow I love JLC more than AP  . I really donot have a category for HUBLOT as I have not yet been able to fathom the need for this brand, no offense to Hublot lovers, just my personal 0.02$.

A Sub or an Explorer I can take out come rain, sun, flood, snow, whatever. But stuff like JLC, VC will have to handled with more "care" and not exposed to the daily hardships of life  . I am sure you will agree with me there.

Well true, another big problem for genuine Rolex users - with so many fakes flooding the markets it is hard know how many of those Rolex's floating around you in the malls/restaurants are genuine - which gives the impression that Rolex wearers are a dime a dozen. But I will interpret it as a kind of a "Homage"/recognition to the popularity of the Rolex brand across nations and social strata.

Since you already own or have owned a Rolex and have had your fill with the brand, then it surely makes sense to move on to higher ground  . Which quai de l'ile model have you targetted ? The Annual Calenders ? Power Reserves or Self Winding ones ? They are all very beautiful and desirable. One of my friend owns the Patrimony Contemporaine date 40mm (Ref 85180/000G-9230) and I love the feel of 18k white gold on the wrist. Hoping for the day I would be able to afford one for myself  .


----------



## GaryF

I was going to just point out that JLC also make rugged watches (their divers, for instance) but this hobby is (or should be) always about getting the watch that makes you happy. It's clear from your posts that your heart is set on an Explorer and I think, if you do, that you'll be very happy with it. It's a great, well-made watch that you can wear every day (in all temperatures, too, with that bracelet).
I think you should get that base covered and then, later, if you later get the urge to add something a little more special, JLC will be waiting for you. An Explorer and a Master Control would be a great combination.



exoticwatches said:


> Well there have been a lot of "retired" divers now who have extensively used Subs for diving ... yess currently there would be much lesser number of divers who would be using their expensive Subs for diving purposes. But they are still in use for that purpose though in a much limited way. And amongst GMT 2 C owners - global travellers & pilots - still do refer to their wrists sometimes to track the time back home vis-a-vis their place of visit. But surely "MoonPhase" ? What do you use it for ? Predicting high tides & low tides ? Perhaps it will come in handy if there is a nuke war and we all go back to the dark ages ;-) ... though very very limited chances of that nowadays.
> 
> But all said and done I did state earlier that JLCs are definitely the watches with more complicated movements and prestige value than Rolex. But by "RUGGEDNESS" I mean the more sturdier build quality of Rolex VS JLC in the *mechanical watches category* .... Rolex is definitely not the last word in watchmaking as the revered Patek surely takes the cake in my HO followed by VC, JLC and AP. Yess somehow I love JLC more than AP  . I really donot have a category for HUBLOT as I have not yet been able to fathom the need for this brand, no offense to Hublot lovers, just my personal 0.02$.
> 
> A Sub or an Explorer I can take out come rain, sun, flood, snow, whatever. But stuff like JLC, VC will have to handled with more "care" and not exposed to the daily hardships of life  . I am sure you will agree with me there.
> 
> Well true, another big problem for genuine Rolex users - with so many fakes flooding the markets it is hard know how many of those Rolex's floating around you in the malls/restaurants are genuine - which gives the impression that Rolex wearers are a dime a dozen. But I will interpret it as a kind of a "Homage"/recognition to the popularity of the Rolex brand across nations and social strata.
> 
> Since you already own or have owned a Rolex and have had your fill with the brand, then it surely makes sense to move on to higher ground  . Which quai de l'ile model have you targetted ? The Annual Calenders ? Power Reserves or Self Winding ones ? They are all very beautiful and desirable. One of my friend owns the Patrimony Contemporaine date 40mm (Ref 85180/000G-9230) and I love the feel of 18k white gold on the wrist. Hoping for the day I would be able to afford one for myself  .


----------



## lp1974

Dixan said:


> Again, "ruggedness" is not necessarily an indicator of quality.


hehe...yes.. some russian watches are extremely rugged and i doubt any rolex wearer will dare accept a "wrist clash" with a russian watch wearer. 
so, its definitely not my yardstick for quality. no rolexes or many other watch can "out rugged" a Gshock.


----------



## lp1974

back to the topic. i will definitely not rate rolex as more desirable as JLC on all fronts except brand recognisability to the man on the street and muggers. 

i find AP, VC, PP, ALS, very strong contenders for the topic. and in some quarters, a few may even argue GP, hublot and panerai... which i quite like the GPs.


----------



## exoticwatches

GaryF said:


> I was going to just point out that JLC also make rugged watches (their divers, for instance) but this hobby is (or should be) always about getting the watch that makes you happy. It's clear from your posts that your heart is set on an Explorer and I think, if you do, that you'll be very happy with it. It's a great, well-made watch that you can wear every day (in all temperatures, too, with that bracelet).
> I think you should get that base covered and then, later, if you later get the urge to add something a little more special, JLC will be waiting for you. An Explorer and a Master Control would be a great combination.


Ok Gary & SytemC .. a *MIRACLE HAS HAPPENED* .... you have got yourselves a BELIEVER 

Today morning I walked down to both the Rolex boutique and the JLC AD ...... .... the Master Control Moon Phase has surely won my heart  ... so bidding adieu to my prospective Exp 1 I think I will go in for the Moon Phase or any other simple version of the Master Control at the earliest possible instance ... the quaint see through back and the VERY sober and graceful dial face and elegant wrist presence has really moved me over to the JLC camp ;-)

The Explorer 1 looks pretty pale compared to the JLC looks, infact I might add my Silver dial Citizen Quartz 37mm looks better than the Exp 1 :-d

I am myself amazed at my overnite transformation ... for the better 

Plus with *Rolex price increase effected last month* (details I have posted in Rolex forum today) has rendered the Exp 1 ostensibly overpriced vis-a-vis the range of JLCs available in the same price range of the Exp 1.


----------



## GaryF

The Moonphase is a stunning watch.

I'm not of the opinion that the Rolex is a bad watch or even an inferior watch to any JLC. I own (and am very happy with) an Explorer. For the vast majority of people, I'd even go as far as to say that it is a much better everyday watch.

BUT

The JLC something to treasure. It's not designed to take abuse. It's design to make you sigh. The detailing is exquisite and, whenever I'm wearing my Memovox, I know that I am carrying around a warm fuzzy feeling whenever I need it. It's like an extra complication.



exoticwatches said:


> Ok Gary & SytemC .. a *MIRACLE HAS HAPPENED* .... you have got yourselves a BELIEVER
> 
> Today morning I walked down to both the Rolex boutique and the JLC AD ...... .... the Master Control Moon Phase has surely won my heart  ... so bidding adieu to my prospective Exp 1 I think I will go in for the Moon Phase or any other simple version of the Master Control at the earliest possible instance ... the quaint see through back and the VERY sober and graceful dial face and elegant wrist presence has really moved me over to the JLC camp ;-)
> 
> The Explorer 1 looks pretty pale compared to the JLC looks, infact I might add my Silver dial Citizen Quartz 37mm looks better than the Exp 1 :-d
> 
> I am myself amazed at my overnite transformation ... for the better
> 
> Plus with *Rolex price increase effected last month* (details I have posted in Rolex forum today) has rendered the Exp 1 ostensibly overpriced vis-a-vis the range of JLCs available in the same price range of the Exp 1.


----------



## systemcrasher

lol 

as you said in your previous posts (and I completely agree with you) that moonphase has almost no function for modern people and most complications are showcase of company's skills and craftmanship, but once you look at a high quality watch with moonphase and multi-complications, it somehow sucks you in...I was so itching to get a Nautilus with moonphase last year, but the bracelet was bit of downer for me, so I got the VC Overseas instead.

And this is the Quai de-L'Ile I'm planning on getting sometime next year...(but it WILL take 6 months for delivery VC said....)







I'm not too sure what metals I want to have... but definitely not all in gold. Probably mix of titanium and palladium.. I didn't want this so bad until I saw one in flesh.


----------



## GaryF

That's an incredible thing. Pictures on the big day, please!


systemcrasher said:


> lol
> 
> as you said in your previous posts (and I completely agree with you) that moonphase has almost no function for modern people and most complications are showcase of company's skills and craftmanship, but once you look at a high quality watch with moonphase and multi-complications, it somehow sucks you in...I was so itching to get a Nautilus with moonphase last year, but the bracelet was bit of downer for me, so I got the VC Overseas instead.
> 
> And this is the Quai de-L'Ile I'm planning on getting sometime next year...(but it WILL take 6 months for delivery VC said....)
> View attachment 1178023
> 
> I'm not too sure what metals I want to have... but definitely not all in gold. Probably mix of titanium and palladium.. I didn't want this so bad until I saw one in flesh.


----------



## exoticwatches

systemcrasher said:


> lol
> 
> as you said in your previous posts (and I completely agree with you) that moonphase has almost no function for modern people and most complications are showcase of company's skills and craftmanship, but once you look at a high quality watch with moonphase and multi-complications, it somehow sucks you in...I was so itching to get a Nautilus with moonphase last year, but the bracelet was bit of downer for me, so I got the VC Overseas instead.
> 
> And this is the Quai de-L'Ile I'm planning on getting sometime next year...(but it WILL take 6 months for delivery VC said....)
> View attachment 1178023
> 
> I'm not too sure what metals I want to have... but definitely not all in gold. Probably mix of titanium and palladium.. I didn't want this so bad until I saw one in flesh.


For sure a lovely piece by VC no doubt and praying you get it ASAP so you can share the touch & feel of this amazing masterpiece with us in words and pictures ....

And as rightly told by you ... it is hard to tell what attracts you until the moment you have it strapped on your wrist ... the moment I had the MC MoonPhase with black leather strap and deployant buckle on my wrist it instantly transformed and carried me into a different world ... 

I also desire the PP Nautilus but the simple version - 5711/1A-010 - blue dial ... but it is just out of my reach at this point of time ...


----------



## systemcrasher

GaryF said:


> That's an incredible thing. Pictures on the big day, please!


I definitely will! But that 6 months wait will be so unbearable.. I've been without my Overseas for little over 10 weeks now as it is getting serviced and that is killing me... I reckon I will go mad waiting for a brand new watch for 6 months!! And this is one of those things I would like to purchase brand new... I'd be surprised if I can commit to it before June next year... which means it could be a nice Christmas present for myself if all goes well 



exoticwatches said:


> For sure a lovely piece by VC no doubt and praying you get it ASAP so you can share the touch & feel of this amazing masterpiece with us in words and pictures ....


I have see the Quai de-Lile in person and that dial is out of this world... Not a bit fan of the strap options they offer, but I'd buy it just for the dial 



exoticwatches said:


> And as rightly told by you ... it is hard to tell what attracts you until the moment you have it strapped on your wrist ... the moment I had the MC MoonPhase with black leather strap and deployant buckle on my wrist it instantly transformed and carried me into a different world ...
> 
> I also desire the PP Nautilus but the simple version - 5711/1A-010 - blue dial ... but it is just out of my reach at this point of time ...


Yep.. so many photos on the web don't do watches justice.. I think I've only come across a handful of watches that looked better in photo. But I think look is only half the story.. Size, feel and weight all contribute greatly in making purchase decisions (and price of course).

This hobby offers never ending discoveries and that's why it's great!


----------



## AlistairD

I've been looking a while at a major upgrade in my collection and I must admit that JLC looks the best bang for buck by far of the major brands..

The sit in a nice niche between the unobtainable (PP etc) and the high street brands (Montblanc, Tag, Breitling etc.) Panerai are interesting but don't feel they have the same build quality as the JLC at a similar price and I see far too many Rolex's to make them interesting to me...

Just my 2p worth...

A


----------



## georges zaslavsky

AP, Vacheron and PP are not really manufactures because they have been using piguet, lemania and jlc ebauches for their base movements so for me JLC is a step above them just see their complications. Only Philippe Dufour, De Bethune, Parmigiani Fleurier and Roger Dubuis can be ranked as higher than jlc


----------



## AAMC

georges zaslavsky said:


> AP, Vacheron and PP are not really manufactures because they have been using piguet, lemania and jlc ebauches for their base movements so for me JLC is a step above them just see their complications. Only Philippe Dufour, De Bethune, Parmigiani Fleurier and Roger Dubuis can be ranked as higher than jlc


And Laurent Ferrier...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## GaryF

When the age-old (and very subjective) question question of who makes the best watches comes up, the "Big Three" always get mentioned along with A. Lange but the company which consistently makes my jaw drop with it's quality, creativity and all around desirability is De Bethune. I am under no illusions that I will ever be able to own one but still&#8230;.



georges zaslavsky said:


> AP, Vacheron and PP are not really manufactures because they have been using piguet, lemania and jlc ebauches for their base movements so for me JLC is a step above them just see their complications. Only Philippe Dufour, De Bethune, Parmigiani Fleurier and Roger Dubuis can be ranked as higher than jlc


----------



## eamonn345

I read the following on a non-watch forum as a reponse to someone suggesting that a reverso should be purchased:

''wtf? a JLC reverso is as hackneyed as any sub or daytona.''

What does 'hackneyed' mean?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eamonn345

vysis said:


> I realize there's no point in debating this, so refer to my previous post. These are facts, not opinions


Interesting to see you're now selling your iwc to buy a jlc. Converted??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spazz27

eamonn345 said:


> I read the following on a non-watch forum as a reponse to someone suggesting that a reverso should be purchased:
> 
> ''wtf? a JLC reverso is as hackneyed as any sub or daytona.''
> 
> What does 'hackneyed' mean?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


"Hackneyed" means unimportant or not unique... but I think the key to "judging the source" is that you found that opinion a "non-watch" forum... anyone else should know better


----------



## lp1974

eamonn345 said:


> I read the following on a non-watch forum as a reponse to someone suggesting that a reverso should be purchased:
> 
> ''wtf? a JLC reverso is as hackneyed as any sub or daytona.''
> 
> What does 'hackneyed' mean?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i like the sub and daytona, prob the only 2 models i like from rolex. but the sheer fact that the origins of most rolex models, including the daytona and sub were made from movements not made by rolex... and the design have essentially not evolved much, that puts reverso in a league above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

