# Think you know Daniel Wellington? No, you don't.



## Kevin.nbt

Hey there, dear watch fellas @ WUS. I'm a middle class executive from Singapore - the most expensive city in the world and I've recently decide to combine my passion for writing and watches.

The below is a post from my 2 weeks old blog. Pardon the strange placement of images as I copied and paste the whole thing here.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.











It is a near global sensation seen on the wrists of hip students to white collared young executives in a rare equal-gender distribution. According to a Bloomberg report, the company raked in $70 million in 2014 with a sale of 1 million watches; Daniel Wellington is an immensely successful watch company.









I will off start by saying that I don't own a Daniel Wellington and I never will. The purpose of this article is not one of endorsement (obviously) and neither is it meant to be a bashing of the brand and its followers.

What it is, is an unprejudiced study into the factors which turned a seemingly plain looking watch into the phenomenon it is today, followed by the reasons why true watch guys will never be converts.

*Success contributor 1: it's all about the strap*










Prior to Daniel Wellington, young adults and fresh-in-the-workforce yuppies unacquainted with watches had never seen something like this - a formal looking watch case and dial paired with a colourful NATO strap. In their minds, fabrics straps were meant for chunky sport watches i.e. G-shock; likewise, a formal watch should always come with a leather strap.









The mix of formal and casual was refreshing and original (or so they thought) and this juxtaposition appealed to a generation that grew up on Facebook and iPhones - one that sees classic as 'boring' fueled by a culture constantly searching for 'the new black'.

When Daniel Wellington arrived, it checked all the right boxes: affordable, good looking, colourful and 'rad'. 

The combination of these elements paired with a sophisticated sounding brand name took the world by storm.

*Why true watch guys don't buy it*

They've been swapping watch cases onto NATOs (and other straps) vice versa for years; there is nothing new or original about it.

Supposed that you were a mathematical genius born and trapped in a cave but somehow, managed to come up with the theory of relativity not knowing that Albert Einstein has already done it 5 years ago, would that make the news?

No. Rediscovery is not discovery.










Photo: watchuseek forum










Traditional watch companies have also been launching models featuring NATO straps. 

These are companies with true heritage making top quality products but more on this later.










TUDOR Heritage 'Chrono Blue'








Tudor Heritage 'Monte Carlo'

*Success contributor 2: new media*










I'll hazard a guess and boldly claim that if Daniel Wellington had came out 15 years ago, it would be dead within 2.

Daniel Wellington does no traditional advertising, instead relying on social platforms to spread the word. A #danielwellington hashtag inducts you into a fan club where avid supporters post 'wrist shots' and share them with the world.

If there's one forte this generation possesses, it is the ability to take marvellous photographs and working magic with camera filters and image editors.

Take a look at some of the pictures, they all look fantastic. Bear in mind that these are not models in the traditional sense, they're people like you and me.



















*
Why true watch guys don't buy it*

Traditional watch companies have been slow in adopting to social media - a medium often perceived (and rightly so) as too abrupt, short lasting and attention spans lasting a grand total of 5 seconds.

The pace of social media does not work well with the messages they would like to send across.












Take for example, the _Omega Co-axial_ escapement that took close to 15 years of research and development before it was launched - an achievement only made possible by the brightest minds in mechanical watchmaking; this is not a story that can be told in a few paragraphs or 3 minutes and so, they simply don't.

Traditional brands adopt a semi-passive stance and would much rather you come to them with a genuine interest to discover, as opposed to splashing it all over Facebook.

True watch guys don't just like their watches for the way they look. The ideas and trials behind its conception are studied with an obsession. When we look at Daniel Wellington, we see a void. 

*Success contributor 3: great design*











The dials on Daniel Wellington watches look fantastic. It's clean, simple, sharp and timeless.

It is an extremely palatable design that works for everybody.

*Why true watch guys don't buy it*

All is well and good. Only, it didn't come from Daniel Wellington.

I've written on a few occasions about _Bauhaus_ - a philosophy and art form originating from Germany which emphasize on minimalism and balance. _Bauhaus_ is what you see on Daniel Wellington's watches.









The original school of Bauhaus

There is nothing inherently wrong with drawing inspiration from classic design philosophies. It's just that traditional watch companies have done it and done it better. Moreover, their watches are offered at a greater _value_. Note that I didn't say price, but _value_. We'll get to that. 








True Bauhaus. 100% Germany.

Daniel Wellington states in its website that it is _'constantly striving for perfection, and allowing our Scandinavian identity to shine through.'_

Honestly, try as I may but I just don't see that connection. There is nothing _Scandinavian_ about Bauhaus.

*Success contributor 4: It has a romantic founding story*

First of all, the founder of Daniel Wellington is a Swedish by the name of Filip Tysander.

So who the hell is Daniel Wellington?

As the story goes, Filip had a chance encounter with an English stranger named Daniel Wellington during his travels across the British Isle. Mr Wellington had a thing for wearing vintage watches on weathered fabric straps and this so inspired Filip that he decided to create a watch brand and name it after this mysterious gentleman. Hearing a story like this conjures up images like these:












Sounds sentimental and while it may well have been true, there is a total lack of backing to this story, which feels to me that they created the watch first, and the story second.

The non-occurrence of a Daniel Wellington coming forth to identify himself as *the* Daniel Wellington is also rather curious, considering how big the brand is in the UK. Add that to the fact that Filip Tysander not only met him once, but on numerous occasions between Melbourne and Cairns. And remember that Mr. Wellington was a complete stranger.

How many times have you met your neighbour in a place other than your doorstep and the lift?

You get my point.

*Why true watch guys don't buy it*

We love stories. And we have a lot of them to tell if you had the time and patience.

For comparison, here's a favourite story of mine:

In 1970, the American spaceflight, Apollo 13 was on its way back to earth in deep space. And it was in deep trouble.












An equipment failure had crippled onboard measuring instruments. Jack Swigert, one of the mission's astronauts used the chronograph on his _Omega Speedmaster_ to time the critical 14 second engine burn to do a mid-course correction at the precise moment and brought the crew safely back to earth.

How's that for a good story?











*
Success contributor 5: It is highly affordable*

Daniel Wellington watches range from SGD 250 to SGD 390.









Compared to Swiss or German watches coming in at 4 digits, it does seem like a fantastic deal - a perfect entry point for young adults and yuppies just stepping into society.

*Why true watch guys don't buy it*

As emphasized further up, good price does not equate to good value. Value is derived from a careful dissection of various components and drawing a comparison back to the price once you've sorted it out.










Let us examine the Classic Glasgow, one of their most popular models:


Quartz battery powered hence requiring the occasional battery change
Uses a Japanese movement - Miyota 1L22 which costs about 10 dollars
Watches are assembled and made in China
Straps are made in China
Sells for SGD 250









I'll take a similar looking watch from NOMOS Glashutte, a German watchmaker known for its Bauhaus watches.




Manual winding. It can last forever.
Uses a true in-house movement that was researched and tested by a team of NOMOS mechanical engineers over a period of years and millions of dollars
Watch is fully assembled in Germany
Leather strap is made from genuine Shell Cordovan which takes up to 6 months to produce a batch
Costs SGD 2,340

Cost is about absolute numbers; value is not. Judging from the comparison, Daniel Wellington is _severely_ overpriced.

Sure, the NOMOS costs 10 times more but I'll gladly save up my money to get one than to have 10 Daniel Wellingtons in 10 different colours.

*Decision time
*
With all that said, the choice is yours. I am a firm believer of liberty and support the idea that we should just buy what we like. This article was an objective 2 cents worth to hopefully make you ponder.

If you'd still like to pick a Daniel Wellington, be my guest: www.danielwellington.com


----------



## dbje

I like the story but it's pretty long for something that comes down to this:

1. People like individuality hence the different nato straps, to get your own "style"

2. But people also like to be a part of a group hence millions of sales of a product that looks merely the same

3. People are afraid of being to outgoing so play it safe with a design that's not outspoken, I find it to be boring.

4. It doesn't cost a whole lot. 

I would never buy a DW, I'd rather get a $10 DW style watch from .........s (which are probably the same manufacturers as DW uses). 

Or do it only right Bauhaus way, Nomos or Junghans Max Bill.


----------



## swissgmt

Well you had me until you sited Apollo 11 as the mission in question. It was Apollo 13, 11 was the first to land on the moon in 1969. The picture you show is of "Buzz" Aldrin not Jack Swigert, Aldrin was the LEM pilot on Apollo 11. Other than that you have an interesting write up of a not too interesting watch company.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

dbje said:


> I like the story but it's pretty long for something that comes down to this:
> 
> 1. People like individuality hence the different nato straps, to get your own "style"
> 
> 2. But people also like to be a part of a group hence millions of sales of a product that looks merely the same
> 
> 3. People are afraid of being to outgoing so play it safe with a design that's not outspoken, I find it to be boring.
> 
> 4. It doesn't cost a whole lot.
> 
> I would never buy a DW, I'd rather get a $10 DW style watch from .........s (which are probably the same manufacturers as DW uses).
> 
> Or do it only right Bauhaus way, Nomos or Junghans Max Bill.


Hey there, thank you for your feedback. You're absolutely right that this story can be told in a much shorter way but I was planning to write it in a more narrative manner and hence, the length.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

swissgmt said:


> Well you had me until you sited Apollo 11 as the mission in question. It was Apollo 13, 11 was the first to land on the moon in 1969. The picture you show is of "Buzz" Aldrin not Jack Swigert, Aldrin was the LEM pilot on Apollo 11. Other than that you have an interesting write up of a not too interesting watch company.


Oh yes, thanks for pointing out the wrong mission number. Shall amend that.

As for the picture, I was actually aware but I was just looking for a photo showing the Speedmaster on the wrist of an astronaut as opposed to it being strapped outside their suit.

Appreciate your comments!


----------



## ilitig8

I actually thought it was insightful, or at least it made what I think is a boring topic interesting. Aside from the space flight errors (I know all us white guys look alike) it was a good read.


----------



## Medusa

That was a good read. Not your average watch article and written in a much different style than many of today's bloggers who seem to be on the payroll. To me the article was easy to understand, your comparisons are logical and I felt the purpose of the article was to educate rather than endorse.


----------



## dbje

No worries man! It was a good story and I found the figures interesting to read! I guess I'm more of a bulletpoint kind of guy! 



Kevin.nbt said:


> Hey there, thank you for your feedback. You're absolutely right that this story can be told in a much shorter way but I was planning to write it in a more narrative manner and hence, the length.


----------



## swissgmt

Kevin.nbt said:


> Oh yes, thanks for pointing out the wrong mission number. Shall amend that.
> 
> As for the picture, I was actually aware but I was just looking for a photo showing the Speedmaster on the wrist of an astronaut as opposed to it being strapped outside their suit.
> 
> Appreciate your comments!


I grew up during our space program and remember watching Neil Armstrong make the first footprint on the moon, sitting in front of the TV in my diaper. So I'm a space head, not a critique just as a writer I thought you might appreciate having it correct. It is a good picture of Buzz wearing the Speedmaster where it was meant to be worn.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

ilitig8 said:


> I actually thought it was insightful, or at least it made what I think is a boring topic interesting. Aside from the space flight errors (I know all us white guys look alike) it was a good read.


Thank you for your kind words. But no, whites don't look all the same to us. Common misconception.

But I know that Asians all look alike to you guys, hahaha.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

Medusa said:


> That was a good read. Not your average watch article and written in a much different style than many of today's bloggers who seem to be on the payroll. To me the article was easy to understand, your comparisons are logical and I felt the purpose of the article was to educate rather than endorse.


Thanks a million, Medusa.

That's the whole point of true journalism - to provide an unbiased viewpoint and provide insight instead of regurgitating a press release. It's something I uphold to very much.


----------



## EnderW

I live in a very "hip" neighborhood in NYC (Park Slope, Brooklyn). DW watches are pretty common.
From my observations and conversations with few local store owners who carry DW brand:
- people like the colorful straps, yes. but not key reason.
- nobody knows the founding story, nor do they care
- new media plays some role, but really DW wristshots are not all that common.

Top 2 reasons I heard for why people get DW watches:
1) they look cool and straps are colorful. Appeal to hipsters for unique\rebel\colorful look
2) They are an attractive watch with good legibility at reasonable price (most are sold <$100). So between DW and Skagen - they are just very easy to buy in the neighborhood.


----------



## RegF

Nicely done!

I think your analysis can be applied in a wider context

Many "fashion" brands have gone down the path of introducing watches to their range of accessories

You can have your Michael Kors purse and watch to match or Guess jeans and a Guess watch

Case in point, my eldest niece, sad to say, is a bit of a fashion .... and was upset when I disparraged her "new, expensive" watch because she'd scratched the glass and the gold had rubbed off.

What was it? yup a fashion brand with a hefty price tag, chinese movement and plexiglas crystal that she'd paid several hundred bucks for. She thought it was good because it had a familiar logo on it

Not quite the same as the DW con, but pretty similar and using many of the same strategies to leverage sales

I bought her younger sister a Seiko 5 for her 21st because she asked about what makes a "good" watch.

So, not all kids today are a total loss in making "value" judgements.


----------



## Potacho

Only Wellington I know is beef Wellington. Probably also something to do with marketing. Good write up!


----------



## NightOwl

While it's probably nothing the typical WUS member doesn't already know, it was an interesting read in a different writing style. It's too bad most people who like and/or buy DW will never bother to read it. 

Regarding the apotion of DW by hipsters, funny thing is I live in one of the main hipster hubs and I see a lot more rolexes on natos than DWs.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


----------



## watchRus

Can you provide a link to your blog?


----------



## u2bdet

Very interesting ,well written piece ...my only fear is that the hipsters will read it and begin to enter the WIS world .....you know how that will end ....."there goes the neighborhood!! " LOL


----------



## JSI

NightOwl said:


> Regarding the apotion of DW by hipsters, funny thing is I live in one of the main hipster hubs and I see a lot more rolexes on natos than DWs.


Those aren't real hipsters, those are the wannabe hipsters. Real hipsters in the arts district/university campuses are sporting lots of these watches.

(Note: I am wearing a Sub on nato strap while in the office today.........in a suite.)


----------



## Kevin.nbt

RegF said:


> Nicely done!
> 
> I think your analysis can be applied in a wider context
> 
> Many "fashion" brands have gone down the path of introducing watches to their range of accessories
> 
> You can have your Michael Kors purse and watch to match or Guess jeans and a Guess watch
> 
> Case in point, my eldest niece, sad to say, is a bit of a fashion .... and was upset when I disparraged her "new, expensive" watch because she'd scratched the glass and the gold had rubbed off.
> 
> What was it? yup a fashion brand with a hefty price tag, chinese movement and plexiglas crystal that she'd paid several hundred bucks for. She thought it was good because it had a familiar logo on it
> 
> Not quite the same as the DW con, but pretty similar and using many of the same strategies to leverage sales
> 
> I bought her younger sister a Seiko 5 for her 21st because she asked about what makes a "good" watch.
> 
> So, not all kids today are a total loss in making "value" judgements.


Fashion watches are really the bane of the industry. I can relate to why girls like them as they view watches in a similar vein as accessories in general so that's a little bit more 'forgivable' but a man should never be spotted with a CK watch or the like. Never.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

u2bdet said:


> Very interesting ,well written piece ...my only fear is that the hipsters will read it and begin to enter the WIS world .....you know how that will end ....."there goes the neighborhood!! " LOL


Thank you, sir.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder what sort of questions hipsters would ask in WUS.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

NightOwl said:


> While it's probably nothing the typical WUS member doesn't already know, it was an interesting read in a different writing style. It's too bad most people who like and/or buy DW will never bother to read it.
> 
> Regarding the apotion of DW by hipsters, funny thing is I live in one of the main hipster hubs and I see a lot more rolexes on natos than DWs.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


Thank you for your comment, NightOwl.

The writing stance of the blog is one that's written assuming that the reader knows nothing/very little about horology. That's the audience I'm trying to go for.

The goal is to pique interests among non-watch guests by sharing the amazing stories behind brands and pieces.


----------



## Sevenmack

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. If you don't want to wear a Daniel Wellington, then don't. If someone else does, then they shall. The snobbery among us watch collectors against those wearing a DW is rather tiresome. 

For one thing, looking down on Daniel Wellington makes no sense. When it gets down to it, no one's watch is worth the money they pay for it on any objective level; if melted for scrap, a Rolex will be worth as much as a Daniel Wellington or an Invicta or a Seiko. 

Another thing: All brands start with no history and no story. Vacheron had to make watches before his namesake firm became one of the major forces in watchmaking. Hans Wilsdorf had to open up a watch shop in order to get Rolex to where it is now. Heritage is a result of what happens, and in order for it to happen, watchmakers must first start from some beginning. And honestly, for all the pretensions we watch collectors make about worshiping history and heritage, the fact that we ignore certain brands like Cartier (which invented the first men's wristwatch) because it doesn't make the watches we prefer shows how little we really care about "story" and "history" and "heritage".

Finally, and most importantly, the existence of Daniel Wellington means more people buying watches, which can lead to more of them becoming collectors and enjoying the brands we elevate above all others. Plenty of folks on Watchuseek got started with an Invicta or a Stuhrling Original or a Skagen, which, like Daniel Wellington, are brands for which we care little. And even if they don't become collectors, they are buying more watches. And that's good for all of us.


----------



## vCardinal

Hey bud, while I admittedly skimmed through it I can tell you you'll be needing an editor if this is to be marketed to an English speaking crowd. Examples of spelling and grammatical errors litter the article, such as using adopting instead of adapting, or not using "from" when presenting a range of wearers (It is a near global sensation seen on a _diverse set of_ wrists, _from_ hip students to white collared executives) just as an example.

You also use a ton of bloated language and adjectives, which usually indicate that the writer is trying to explicitly lengthen the piece even though they don't have much to say.

Again, I'm not saying this can't be fixed, but these things are noticed by native speakers, whether they actively realize it or not.

Just some constructive criticism. I'm sure this is just a fun side project for you, so I don't mean to place unjustified or undue pressure, but some people can have blogs really take off if they're polished. Doing the same for yours could make the difference between a few followers and thousands, especially when the people you're marketing pride themselves on enjoying a hobby most consider haut de gamme.


----------



## sak335

I'm not surprised these are selling well within the target audience, but that backwards looking logo alone would make me nuts.


----------



## Wibbs

Sevenmack said:


> At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. If you don't want to wear a Daniel Wellington, then don't. If someone else does, then they shall. The snobbery among us watch collectors against those wearing a DW is rather tiresome.


Nail on the head Sir. I'm long enough in the game of collecting "old watches" to remember the fashionable back in the day regarding them more than somewhat sniffily. I guarantee that if this forum existed in 1980, the demographics of taste, movements and brands would be very different. As would the arguments. The digital forum would be a lot larger for a start. Like the poor, snobs will always be with us, forever shifting focus to make them feel authentic and less self conscious. It's a human nature thing.



> Another thing: All brands start with no history and no story.


Exactly and pretty much all brands were "fashion brands" to some degree or other once. The vast majority of watches sold before the 1970's were what we'd see as pretty plain "dress watches", in gold or gold plate, "small" and rarely with complications beyond a date(chronographs were a hard sell and very much a niche market). As well as telling the time(more important a need back then) there were low ostentation wrist jewellery for men. They tended to be a lifetime special occasion purchase so there were fewer avenues for cheap throwaway fashion watches but they were a fashion item as much as a utilitarian one.



> Finally, and most importantly, the existence of Daniel Wellington means more people buying watches,


+1. I know of quite the few guys who got deeper into watches on the back of a Micheal Kors or Fossil watch. Plus a company like Fossil comes up with more new designs in a year than many of the big Swiss names have come up with in the last ten. Never mind that a goodly chunk of the Swiss brands were reduced to shell companies, or shells of companies who were saved by the sales of a very cheap plastic quartz that is being decried here. Without the Swatch watch the Swiss watch industry and this hobby would be a very different one.

Just one point though SM, though I take your overall point about Cartier, they didn't make the first men's wristwatch. Not by a long shot. Men had started to wear wristwatches a decade and more before Santos first flew a plane. That's a bit of Cartier PR and inventive history. That kinda thing that most of the companies do is a debate for another day though.


----------



## publandlord

Sevenmack said:


> At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. If you don't want to wear a Daniel Wellington, then don't. If someone else does, then they shall. The snobbery among us watch collectors against those wearing a DW is rather tiresome.


I'll say.

Daniel Wellington. Uh, what is this, a WIS forum? Oh, uh, Speedy Pro. They're iconic and discerning or something


----------



## publandlord

Kevin.nbt said:


> Thank you, sir.
> 
> That's an interesting thought. I wonder what sort of questions hipsters would ask in WUS.


No less tedious questions than your average brand obsessed, moneyed watch snob!


----------



## Ayreonaut

I just noticed that the DW has no seconds hand or date. Both of those contribute to the fact that it is more elegant than your average quartz watch.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

Sevenmack said:


> At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. If you don't want to wear a Daniel Wellington, then don't. If someone else does, then they shall. The snobbery among us watch collectors against those wearing a DW is rather tiresome.
> 
> For one thing, looking down on Daniel Wellington makes no sense. When it gets down to it, no one's watch is worth the money they pay for it on any objective level; if melted for scrap, a Rolex will be worth as much as a Daniel Wellington or an Invicta or a Seiko.
> 
> Another thing: All brands start with no history and no story. Vacheron had to make watches before his namesake firm became one of the major forces in watchmaking. Hans Wilsdorf had to open up a watch shop in order to get Rolex to where it is now. Heritage is a result of what happens, and in order for it to happen, watchmakers must first start from some beginning. And honestly, for all the pretensions we watch collectors make about worshiping history and heritage, the fact that we ignore certain brands like Cartier (which invented the first men's wristwatch) because it doesn't make the watches we prefer shows how little we really care about "story" and "history" and "heritage".
> 
> Finally, and most importantly, the existence of Daniel Wellington means more people buying watches, which can lead to more of them becoming collectors and enjoying the brands we elevate above all others. Plenty of folks on Watchuseek got started with an Invicta or a Stuhrling Original or a Skagen, which, like Daniel Wellington, are brands for which we care little. And even if they don't become collectors, they are buying more watches. And that's good for all of us.


Hi Sevenmack, Thank you for your points.


I did state clearly that this article was not meant to be a bashing of DW though I do understand that it's a little difficult to see that as my stance on them was clearly shown. It's not a 'no, you should avoid DW like the plague' but an examination of its commercial success and why traditional watch lovers do not partake in it. 


I do not look down on DW and the people who wear them. 


While it is definitely true that no brand starts with an illustrious history, I'm just disturbed by the fact that DW has seemingly created one out of thin air. 

However, I do agree that people buying watches of any kind is good for the industry in general. 


Cheers, mate.


----------



## Kevin.nbt

vCardinal said:


> Hey bud, while I admittedly skimmed through it I can tell you you'll be needing an editor if this is to be marketed to an English speaking crowd. Examples of spelling and grammatical errors litter the article, such as using adopting instead of adapting, or not using "from" when presenting a range of wearers (It is a near global sensation seen on a _diverse set of_ wrists, _from_ hip students to white collared executives) just as an example.
> 
> You also use a ton of bloated language and adjectives, which usually indicate that the writer is trying to explicitly lengthen the piece even though they don't have much to say.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying this can't be fixed, but these things are noticed by native speakers, whether they actively realize it or not.
> 
> Just some constructive criticism. I'm sure this is just a fun side project for you, so I don't mean to place unjustified or undue pressure, but some people can have blogs really take off if they're polished. Doing the same for yours could make the difference between a few followers and thousands, especially when the people you're marketing pride themselves on enjoying a hobby most consider haut de gamme.


Hi, kind sir. You've stated something extremely valid and it's always good to get commentary on the language and syntax from native speakers.

I'm constantly looking to polish up my writing and these pointers have helped immensely. This article is not posted on my blog yet as I intend to proofread it prior but thought I'll share it here to get feedback first.

Appreciate your encouragement!


----------



## Wibbs

Kevin.nbt said:


> While it is definitely true that no brand starts with an illustrious history, I'm just disturbed by the fact that DW has seemingly created one out of thin air.


The watch industry is rife with similar, with a coterie of industry journalists that will just add their byline to thinly veiled press releases to support it. Some very "big names" do it. QV Patek Phillipe and their release of a pilots watch. It's a large segment of the market and they didn't have one, nor did they have anything like a history in the segment, so they went ahead and pretty much invented one on the back of just _two_ 1930's prototypes. Likely for the German military of the time as the design was the Luftwaffe version of the Weems. Oh and the new one looks nothing like the 30's ones. Just an overpriced GMT watch for the air miles club who want to status signal in the departure lounge. And that's _fine_ and good luck to them, but for me at least it's dafter than anything in the so called "fashion watch" segment. Look at the success of Panerai. A brand today with near zero connection to the Italian shop that supplied tiny numbers of watches to military divers. If Sly Stallone hadn't walked by&#8230; Breguet? Make some nice watches, but they've as much connection to Abe Breguet as I do. There is quite a lot of flimflam in the industry, _particularly_ with the Swiss.

You noted Nomos. I have a _lot_ of respect for them. "Only" 26 years old as a company, with none of the pretensions to history of others, many who in all but name are about the same age. They try to appeal to the "fashion" market too, just at a higher price point.


----------



## huyghe27

DW watches should be under $100.
anything over that and your a moron who wasted your money.
thats just science
buy a $15 Bauhuas design on amazon for the same quality.


----------



## WatchingYou77

A few comments:

-Interesting article, although it can come across as slightly negative and elitist. You should determine what you want your tone to be, especially if you are, as you say, targeting a non WIS crowd.

-You need an editor. There are numerous grammatical errors and the style of the language could flow better. 

-Shorten the piece. Trust me. Modern blog readers, especially those not really interested in watches, are ADD and will lose interest 1/2 way through. Make your points more succinct and rely on your visuals.

-The owner of Daniel Wellington is a Swedish guy. I have a few Swedish friends in Shanghai who are friends of friends and apparently he is just rolling in money right now. DW is doing quite well.

-My girlfriend has had ZERO interest in watches since we met. This week she sent me an email about a watch she liked. It was a DW. I bought it for her for 75 bucks on Amazon. If a brand like DW can get younger people back into watches, it's a good thing for the industry.

-In Shanghai, MANY young Chinese are wearing DW watches. They tend to be fashion forward young consumers. A lot of them are wealthy, but like the style.


----------



## joep2k

Nice read, thanks


----------



## diegohwang

swissgmt said:


> Well you had me until you sited Apollo 11 as the mission in question. It was Apollo 13, 11 was the first to land on the moon in 1969. The picture you show is of "Buzz" Aldrin not Jack Swigert, Aldrin was the LEM pilot on Apollo 11. Other than that you have an interesting write up of a not too interesting watch company.


I feel you discredited everything he said about this up and coming watch company with 3 sentences. lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cktyu

Never been a fan of DW. On a side note I thought DW is a legit watch company not a fashion watch


----------



## StufflerMike

cktyu said:


> Never been a fan of DW. On a side note I thought DW is a legit watch company not a fashion watch


Huh ??? DW is a legit watch company producing solely fashion warches.


----------



## robert921

Love the Monte Carlo chrono....it really is any eye catcher!


----------



## mygiftstop

Good article. I think DW also came at a time where minimalism was in style and very trendy. The NATO straps add a bit of color but the watches on leather did very well too. I think it boiled down to timing and affordability.


----------



## Horophilia

The only thing DW is good at is marketing. They create a multi million company by selling junks worth less than 20$ tops.


----------



## Amaliana

Very nice editorial. Thanks.


----------



## RoseQueen

I liked the way you have written the article, it felt refreshing and not blatantly one-sided as a lot of write ups tend to be. Enjoyable


----------



## thewatchidiot

Just one point though SM, though I take your overall point about Cartier, they didn't make the first men's wristwatch. Not by a long shot. Men had started to wear wristwatches a decade and more before Santos first flew a plane. That's a bit of Cartier PR and inventive history. That kinda thing that most of the companies do is a debate for another day though.[/QUOTE]

I had thought too Cartier made the first watch worn on the wrist and the first with lugs integrated into the case.
Who was the first?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

