# So, what exactly is a fashion watch?



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

I've seen many criteria for being a fashion watch discussed on this site. I'll take an initial stab at listing some of the primary ones:

1 - Watches from companies that make stuff besides watches (e.g. Calvin Klein, David Yurman, Guess)

2 - Watches from brands that focus primarily on design/look and frequently have substandard movements (e.g. Brera, Officina del Tempo) (Note: "substandard movement" is of course relative and subjective)

3 - Watches that are widely available in non-WIS establishments, such as being found at department store in Malls (e.g. Fossil, Swatch, Citizen, Invicta)

4 - A pejorative term for anyone trying to express how much they dislike a particular watch/brand (and might be trying to pick a fight)

5 - I would like to add that often times, a price point below luxury is a criterion. Certainly, Panerais, Rolexes, TAGs, etc. have (derisively) been labeled as fashion watches on occasion, but IMO the majority of folks on this board would disagree with that sentiment.

Not expecting to build consensus, but was curious to know other people's thoughts. Any other definitions/criteria missing?


----------



## novedl (May 20, 2009)

i could'nt have said it better!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

#4 and a snob wannabe.


----------



## niles316 (Jul 23, 2008)

Good enough for a sticky.


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

novedl said:


> i could'nt have said it better!





niles316 said:


> Good enough for a sticky.


Thanks guys. I was really wondering, which of these criteria (or combination thereof (or some other criterion not mentioned)) most represent the conventional wisdom of what a "fashion watch" is.

Thoughts?


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

Watchbreath said:


> #4 and a snob wannabe.


For some reason the term "snob wannabe" cracks me up.

It's someone who is not good at being a demeaning, judgmental jerk, but is working on his game and is aspiring to be proficient at it (and accepted by others who are more naturally blessed with the skill set) one day.


----------



## Brother Rat (Nov 26, 2008)

Somewhere between 1 and 2 is what usually comes to mind when I hear the term. *shrugs*


----------



## Isthmus (Feb 13, 2006)

I would say that they are relatively inexpensive watches that mainly (though not exclusively) carry the brands of companies that do not manufacture watches (read - their watches are made by third party manufacturers).


----------



## MdN (Sep 5, 2009)

#3 and #5 can also simply mean "affordable" and not necessarily "fashion" and I have a feeling that many people confuse the two. A "fashion" brand is still capable of making an "affordable" watch (ie: solid quality, honest watch, fair price, won't fall apart after 3 months) and an "affordable" brand will sometimes release "fashion" watches (trendy stuff, crazy looks, sometimes "plated" cases etc).


----------



## checknwatch (Aug 30, 2009)

ecunited said:


> Thanks guys. I was really wondering, which of these criteria (or combination thereof (or some other criterion not mentioned)) most represent the conventional wisdom of what a "fashion watch" is.
> 
> Thoughts?


The only thing missing from your criteria list is...

"6. Jewelry or fashion accessory "watches" that emphasize aesthetics with minimal concern for timekeeping function or accuracy."

This may read like a rewording of criteria #2, but it makes an important distinction between jewelry designers and watchmakers. Jewelry designers use the watch simply as a canvas for fine aesthetic exploration and actual timekeeping is a tertiary consideration. However, there are certain watch brands out there that actually cultivate the impression of quality timekeeping while being quite prolific in their design offerings. What do you all think? Is this a useful distinction to make?


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

There are many fashion watches (mostly quartz) that should be excellent timekeepers. I have a Guess Collection that is really great when it comes to accuracy. So I wouldn't necessarily classify them as poor when it comes to functionality.
When I think of fashion watches, it is usually a timepiece which bears a brand of something I don't normally associate with watchmaking - Guess, Nautica, Tommy Hilfiger, DKNY, Kenneth Cole, Timberland, Jeep, Smith and Wesson. However, that criterion is also too restrictive.


----------



## Andy the Squirrel (Sep 13, 2009)

A fashion watch is a watch that has appeal beyond being able to tell the time.


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

MdN said:


> #3 and #5 can also simply mean "affordable" and not necessarily "fashion" and I have a feeling that many people confuse the two. A "fashion" brand is still capable of making an "affordable" watch (ie: solid quality, honest watch, fair price, won't fall apart after 3 months) and an "affordable" brand will sometimes release "fashion" watches (trendy stuff, crazy looks, sometimes "plated" cases etc).


I agree that "affordable" (and available) comes into play frequently when people think of "fashion watches".

This is the criteria I find most incongruous with the term "fashion."

Perhaps affordable and available leads to seeing a particular watch/brand out in the wild more frequently, making it a part of the fashion landscape.

But my assumption is that the higher end (and less affordable and typically less available) brands are the ones spending the development money on design and style.

IMO - a brand like Chopard is a very "fashionable" brand. A brand like Graham or Bremont obviously have a high level of focus on the look of their pieces. Yet, my guess is you'd be hard pressed to find people that consider brands like these as fashion watches.

At the under end of the scale, there are affordable brands that are frequently labeled as "fashion watches", but when I look at their line, I don't find it impressive from a stylistic standpoint. (Of course this comes down to personal opinion.)


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

checknwatch said:


> The only thing missing from your criteria list is...
> 
> "6. Jewelry or fashion accessory "watches" that emphasize aesthetics with minimal concern for timekeeping function or accuracy."
> 
> This may read like a rewording of criteria #2, but it makes an important distinction between jewelry designers and watchmakers. Jewelry designers use the watch simply as a canvas for fine aesthetic exploration and actual timekeeping is a tertiary consideration. However, there are certain watch brands out there that actually cultivate the impression of quality timekeeping while being quite prolific in their design offerings. What do you all think? Is this a useful distinction to make?


If I understand correctly, I see the nuance - I would say it's a refinement of both criteria #2 and #1, where the #1 examples are jewelry companies such as David Yurman.


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

Andy the Squirrel said:


> A fashion watch is a watch that has appeal beyond being able to tell the time.


That type of definition certainly crossed my mind, but that pretty much describes all watches (which may be your point.) I was even thinking about determining the portion of a company's time/money/effort on design and having a cut-off such as 51%, but that's not really measurable.

I was also thinking about a "fashion statement" criterion, but similar to the above, every watch makes a statement of some sort, whether the wearer likes it or not.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

I think when Ernie started this forum, he had in mind certain easily categorized brands - you can see them in the Forum description. However there are plenty of other examples that will fit in here if desired. I think the Mickey Mouse ones are quite an inspired choice actually. :-!
It's sort of like the Vintage Watch forum - everybody has a concept of what a Vintage watch is, but it's hard to pin it down exactly. We have a deliberate policy that we'll talk Vintage with anyone who wants to do so. Maybe that's not such a bad idea when it comes to Fashion Watches.


----------



## vr6gtiguy (Nov 15, 2008)

ecunited said:


> For some reason the term "snob wannabe" cracks me up.
> 
> It's someone who is not good at being a demeaning, judgmental jerk, but is working on his game and is aspiring to be proficient at it (and accepted by others who are more naturally blessed with the skill set) one day.


LMAO :-d

I think I have run in to a couple people who fit that description perfectly.


----------



## ecunited (Jul 22, 2009)

Ray MacDonald said:


> I think when Ernie started this forum, he had in mind certain easily categorized brands - you can see them in the Forum description. However there are plenty of other examples that will fit in here if desired. I think the Mickey Mouse ones are quite an inspired choice actually. :-!
> It's sort of like the Vintage Watch forum - everybody has a concept of what a Vintage watch is, but it's hard to pin it down exactly. We have a deliberate policy that we'll talk Vintage with anyone who wants to do so. Maybe that's not such a bad idea when it comes to Fashion Watches.


Good post. Sorry if it appears that I wish to nail down the definition and make everyone conform to it. Not my intention at all. Just wanted to get a handle of what people think a "fashion watch" is. I'm basically looking for the "prevailing" criterion (which wouldn't necessarily make it the "correct" or "only" criterion).

Based on the examples Ernie provided (DKNY, Fossil, Guess, Diesel), it seems definition/criterion #1 is what he had in mind, with some elements of the others mixed in (e.g. the innards not being as important as the design, and the brand examples seeming to be in the same (non-luxury) price range).


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Apr 30, 2005)

Nor do I intend to limit discussion either. I think it's fun to try and define any watch category, and at the same time be willing to expand the definition to include new and interesting examples. The bottom line is we enjoy ourselves and nobody feels unwelcome.
If I'm sounding like a Moderator here, I guess I am - unofficially right now until Ernie makes a real appointment.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

:roll: Roger Dubius would really qualify with the Follow Me and Breguet with
the Reine de Naples.


----------



## skoochy (Jan 6, 2009)

"I can't define it, but I know a fashion watch when I see it."

-s-


----------



## kiwidj (Sep 24, 2007)

skoochy said:


> "I can't define it, but I know a fashion watch when I see it."
> 
> -s-


Same here.


----------



## sixtysix (Nov 19, 2007)

I thought it would be easy to define a fashion watch. A watch with a name on it more known for fashion (clothes, or whatever) than for watches. Hugo Boss or Nautica etc. Usually these watches have cheap quartz movements and the money was spent on design rather than materials. 100% of the time these are made by some other company that actually makes watches. Such as Timex making Nautica, Guess and Guess Collection.

But Gucci uses higher end materials and movements, while still a fashion watch can at least be a good quality piece to wear.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

|> Used to sell em like crazy, the 5600 wasn't a fashion watch, but it was
a sales flop. A Gucci buyer was clueless about a manual wind. "You have to wind it, how do you do that? Oh, my grandmother used to do that."


sixtysix said:


> I thought it would be easy to define a fashion watch. A watch with a name on it more known for fashion (clothes, or whatever) than for watches. Hugo Boss or Nautica etc. Usually these watches have cheap quartz movements and the money was spent on design rather than materials. 100% of the time these are made by some other company that actually makes watches. Such as Timex making Nautica, Guess and Guess Collection.
> 
> But Gucci uses higher end materials and movements, while still a fashion watch can at least be a good quality piece to wear.


----------



## Reno (Sep 23, 2008)

ecunited said:


> I've seen many criteria for being a fashion watch discussed on this site. I'll take an initial stab at listing some of the primary ones:
> 
> 1 - Watches from companies that make stuff besides watches (e.g. Calvin Klein, David Yurman, Guess)
> 
> ...


Agreed with your first 3 points, and especially with the first one 

(well, not always)










I generally like watches, so _whatever goes_ is fine with me. ;-)
I have a bit of everything in my collection, and I like it that way.


----------



## Enoran (Apr 15, 2009)

For one reason or another, I have seen quite a fair amount of local youths with this on the wrist ...









I do not think the watch has anything much that spells "I am fashion". Basically its people seeing and relating to each other, and all of a sudden, the gold casio digital became a fashion statement.


----------



## celloboy (Oct 12, 2009)

> 1 - Watches from companies that make stuff besides watches


eg... Cartier - famous for their high quality jewelery, handbags, pens, perfumes... as well as watches where they have a venerable history.

Similarly Chanel, a more recent newcomer to watch manufacture, but very much following in Cartier's footsteps.

Both Cartier & Chanel are luxury design/fashion houses producing watches' that are of undeniable quality among the very best, using movements made by the finest manufactures. Chanel collaborates with AP; Cartier have used JLC (Louis Cartier went into partnership with Edmond Jaegar), as well as AP and VC.


----------



## Claud (Feb 17, 2009)

It's not easy, hehe . I'd go somewhere in the middle:

*"A fashion watch is a watch branded and sold under one of the main fashion house brands or any other brand whose majority stake of business activities is not horological in nature." *

I think this covers mose bases, however Casio (and possibly Seiko) technically could fall under a fashion watch, as it is unclear what the majority proprtion of business is watch-related. Casio and Seiko do a lot of technology. That's one for the Casio/Seiko insiders. The definition covers clothing fashion brand and other brands (e.g. Ferrari, Smith and Wesson) whose majority business activites are not involved in the horology industry. I find the perception of what brands are considered watch brands is too vague. Perceptions are hard to prove and different for everyone.

In light of that one could modify my definition to:

*"A fashion watch is a watch branded and sold under one of the main fashion house brands or any other brand whose horological business activities do not contribute a significant, leading or majority proportion to their total business activities"

*The debate about quality levels and fashion vs horological intent is irrelevant I think. It largely complicates the definition and is largely subjective thus hard to prove (for example when you consider fashion watches are usually cheaper thus obviously will have lower quality components).

That's the best I've got for the moment.


----------



## jewelerman (May 20, 2008)

For me, the fashion watch is Temporary....The buyer is buying an accessory and not a timepiece that has longevity either in design or quality....in fashion its here today and gone tomarrow...the average buyer is trained by branded advirtising to buy,wear and dispose of most of their wearable items after a few short years of wear.A designer these days has a short shelf life before the next new bright star is embraced by the public consumer...they create their look and after they gain status and celebrity then they sell the rights for it to be mass branded and its slapped on an affordable watch that will be worn for a year and tossed in the jewelry box when the next big name comes along.We are a throw away society.


----------



## teeskwared (Apr 7, 2009)

checknwatch said:


> The only thing missing from your criteria list is...
> 
> "6. Jewelry or fashion accessory "watches" that emphasize aesthetics with minimal concern for timekeeping function or accuracy."
> 
> This may read like a rewording of criteria #2, but it makes an important distinction between jewelry designers and watchmakers. Jewelry designers use the watch simply as a canvas for fine aesthetic exploration and actual timekeeping is a tertiary consideration. However, there are certain watch brands out there that actually cultivate the impression of quality timekeeping while being quite prolific in their design offerings. What do you all think? Is this a useful distinction to make?


Could it not be said that 99.9% of the people who buy a Breitling Emergency Mission watch are buying it for the aesthetic appeal (i.e., you could have a more practical Breitling that tells time with the same movement, but you buy this one because it looks "better" than your other options) of saying they have a watch that can send a radio distress signal, since they would be breaking the law by activating it at a dinner party to impress their friends? Or how many _actual _divers wear their Omega Seamasters on dives? Since most don't, does anyone _really_ use the helium release valve? So even in brands that people would not argue are hardcore watches, you have quite a bit of "fashion before function". One of my favorite watches is my Hamilton X-Wind. I bought it because I wanted a Valjoux 7750 chrono, and I like the way it looks. I am not a pilot and I will never ever use the cross wind calcuation function on my X-Wind. But I don't consider it a fashion watch, and neither would the majority of people on WUS.



ecunited said:


> 3 - Watches that are widely available in non-WIS establishments, such as being found at department store in Malls (e.g. Fossil, Swatch, Citizen, Invicta)


I completely disagree that Citizen is a fashion watch. Yes, you can buy it at the mall. But Citizen is one of the few watch makers that use in-house movements, so isn't that a dedication to quality in their watches?

I think you can define a fashion watch at its very core when the perceived value of a watch is defined *solely *by the name brand - not the materials used, not the movement, and not the value of time to produce the watch. Slapping 'Burberry' on a watch that came off the same assembly line as a drugstore Timex, with a lot of the same internal parts, but charging thousands more.

Just my $0.02


----------



## bluloo (Nov 24, 2008)

Claud said:


> It's not easy, hehe . I'd go somewhere in the middle:
> 
> *"A fashion watch is a watch branded and sold under one of the main fashion house brands or any other brand whose horological business activities do not contribute a significant, leading or majority proportion to their total business activities"
> 
> ...


Great start. |>


----------



## ShockMister (Mar 22, 2008)

1. A reproduction of a luxury watch, with an inexpensive quartz movement.

2. A designer brand watch with inexpensive quartz movement.

I know that people call Fossil fashion watches, but I think they are almost in the "real" watch category, while their styles just happen to be very popular.

Citizen and Invicta are real watches. I would never classify them as fashion watches just because they are less expensive than some luxury brands.


----------



## Paul Curtis (Feb 8, 2010)

This is a very good thread and a valid question which is to be asked at the valid and an appropriate destination as well. Fashion watches are those kinds of wrist watches which are the international branded watches and which has been marketed by any international super star as a brand ambassador of that watch company especially appointed for marketing that product for them. These kinds of watches are presented in different and versatile brands and products and are also changes according to the fashion.


----------



## Wrist of Fury (Apr 19, 2010)

If it means a watch that is made by a company better-known for other products, then even, say, a Victorinox would be considered a "fashion brand."

If it means a company that doesn't use its own in-house movements, then that leaves us with just a tiny sliver of "non-fashion" brands to choose from.


----------



## choen (Sep 1, 2010)

Fashion watches are the ones that rust in less than a year.

My wife owns an Adidas digital. The caseback rusted inside 2 months. She only uses it to time moves/sequences for yoga.

Before that, she bought me a Fossil analogue quartz, based on some flieger/military look, with a nifty inaccurate compass on the canvas strap. I have never swam with it, never trekked with it.

The supposed stainless steel caseback cover and case rusted in less than 8 months.

Very clearly they are meant to be disposed off very quickly. Don't waste your money.

Both watches are of course made by Fossil!


PS: Made in China ones are not the only culprit. Swiss Swatch watches don't last either. The clear plastic models that my wife owns have all turned into ugly yellow gel cubes. Others just break down and are impossible to have the movements replaced.


----------

