# Grand Seiko and the Dwindling Middle Class



## Davido22

Historically, GS has been an incredible value proposition and an opportunity to own more than a three hander, e.g. GMT. This year's Baselworld proves that Seiko is no longer interested in many people's business with the incredible northward pricing. Personally I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers. The watches are too thick and in my gut I just feel like that is their problem and they need to make up for this fault, just as they need to improve their bracelet clasps because there is room for improvement, not as a means of jacking prices. Introducing high end movements into other lines, Presage and Prospex, just confuses the separation that GS has taken recently. I find myself looking at Rolex in ways I never dreamed of, I don't want to pay over $7K for a watch that immediately loses significant value when it touches my wrist, not at this level of investment. I was lucky enough to start buying King Seikos the past few years and enjoy the hunt and capture of nice models.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Davido22 said:


> Seiko is no longer interested in many people's business with the incredible northward pricing. Personally I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers


This seemed to be just a circuitous way of saying, "Buy a Rolex." What exactly do you mean in the above portion though?


----------



## heineken4u

I feel the same way as you David. I was going to purchase a sbge201 but than realized half that money will be lost once I wear it. I also don't like the bracelets or their clasps. And guess what watch I ended up getting?









Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## berni29

Hi nice Rolex.

That is the only model in the range that I would seek to own.

Berni


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Davido22

Davido22 said:


> Historically, GS has been an incredible value proposition and an opportunity to own more than a three hander, e.g. GMT. This year's Baselworld proves that Seiko is no longer interested in many people's business with the incredible northward pricing. Personally I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers. The watches are too thick and in my gut I just feel like that is their problem and they need to make up for this fault, just as they need to improve their bracelet clasps because there is room for improvement, not as a means of jacking prices. Introducing high end movements into other lines, Presage and Prospex, just confuses the separation that GS has taken recently. I find myself looking at Rolex in ways I never dreamed of, I don't want to pay over $7K for a watch that immediately loses significant value when it touches my wrist, not at this level of investment. I was lucky enough to start buying King Seikos the past few years and enjoy the hunt and capture of nice models.


I know zot about Rolex, I have no idea what model is posted in this post but I do know that I was willing to put $4K into a loss leader cause I love me some Spring Drive but at twice the price it looks far less attractive.


----------



## mato123

Problem with sport Rolex models is that you can't just walk in to store and buy one. They don't have them in stock and they don't know when they will (at least that's what I was told several times). So you have to buy grey market or pre-owned. When you compare apples to apples, pre-owned or gray market GS, there's no way Rolex is better value for money, not even close.


----------



## yngrshr

Has GS really moved prices up that much? We are seeing some new models at a higher price range, but the core group doesn’t seem to have dramatically increased. 

I’ll worry more when I see that change. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GMT-man

I never understood this "investment" part in buying watches. I do not invest in a dining room table, I do not invest in a laptop, I do not invest in a lawn mower. Not even a car. Why should I invest in a watch? I just keep buying them if I like them.


----------



## heineken4u

mato123 said:


> Problem with sport Rolex models is that you can't just walk in to store and buy one. They don't have them in stock and they don't know when they will (at least that's what I was told several times). So you have to buy grey market or pre-owned. When you compare apples to apples, pre-owned or gray market GS, there's no way Rolex is better value for money, not even close.


So what's ironic is this. I did exactly that. I got my ass up early on a Saturday morning and drove to 4 different Ads. I was looking for a Submariner but on my 4th stop I found this Explorer. It was sitting out in the display, I tried it on and the rest was history. No prior purchase at this AD either.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## heineken4u

Also, buying a pre-owned Rolex is a much better "value-proposition" than a GS. Not sure why you think otherwise. But anyway, I didn't mean to high jack the thread. I just found myself agreeing with comments made by David. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## Alysandir

Respectfully, not certain what this topic has to do with the "dwindling middle class." 

1) what does you turning away from Grand Seiko (to Rolex, of all brands) - because you personally no longer agree with the value proposition of GS - have to do with the state middle class? 
2) you do understand that the greatest indicator for the middle class shrinking is that more middle class are transitioning to the upper class than are being backfilled by those transitioning from lower to middle, right?

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## BrianBinFL

heineken4u said:


> Also, buying a pre-owned Rolex is a much better "value-proposition" than a GS. Not sure why you think otherwise. But anyway, I didn't mean to high jack the thread. I just found myself agreeing with comments made by David.


Mathematically I don't understand how this can be true. Everything I read says Rolex watches maintain their value better than nearly any other brand, save perhaps Patek. Conversely one criticism of Grand Seiko is that in general they do not hold their value well. If that's true then that means when buying a used Rolex the price you pay as a percentage of what a new one costs will be higher than the price you pay for a used Grand Seiko as a percentage of what a new one would cost. Translated, if you're willing to purchase a used luxury watch, your money goes a lot further buying a used Grand Seiko because it has depreciated faster than a Rolex.


----------



## Heljestrand

BrianBinFL said:


> ....if you're willing to purchase a used luxury watch, your money goes a lot further buying a used Grand Seiko because it has depreciated faster than a Rolex.


Yes, purchase a pre-loved GS and wear it everyday. Solved. Or do the same with used Rolex. Factor in your service costs and enjoy either.
Here's mine with all the scars from previous owner.


----------



## mato123

heineken4u said:


> *Also, buying a pre-owned Rolex is a much better "value-proposition" than a GS. Not sure why you think otherwise.* But anyway, I didn't mean to high jack the thread. I just found myself agreeing with comments made by David.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


Because I can buy GS (SBGE201) for 50% of the price of Rolex (GMT Master II) and I'll be getting a better watch (finishing, movement...). I know the second part is subjective, but I am speaking for myself.


----------



## John Price

As another poster noted, the core GS prices (last time I checked a couple weeks ago) have not changed. And you may be able to get a discount on them if you ask your dealer nicely. Or as others have mentioned, buy used. 

Yes, they introduced some new models at Basel that were priced quite high but I'm not sure that's representative of the brand as a whole. You can still get a lot of watch for your money if you stick to current models.


----------



## bigclive2011

I can’t go and buy a Steel Rolex sports model at List in the UK, but I can and recently did, a GS Snowflake.

So if I buy a Rolex at +50% grey-market, not sure how much of that +50% is going to still be in the watch in 5 years time.

So if value retention is a major concern when buying new, think maybe the Rolex superiority has fallen off, and as for quality, my Snowflake is on a par if not better than any of my Rolex.


----------



## heineken4u

mato123 said:


> Because I can buy GS (SBGE201) for 50% of the price of Rolex (GMT Master II) and I'll be getting a better watch (finishing, movement...). I know the second part is subjective, but I am speaking for myself.


You can buy an SBGE201 for a lot less than 50% of the price of a GMT master ii (msrp) , but that's not point. Value retention is what someone spoke about.

If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.

Conversely. I can buy an SBGE201 right now for 20% discount plus no tax off msrp from an AD. The second I wear this watch, the value has fallen even below then this "20% percent discounted price" I paid.

So when speaking of value retention, well, GS doesn't have much to offer. There is a reason why you can get GS brand new at heavily discounted. They don't hold value.

The number one thing GS fans like to regurgitate is... The finishing is second to none. There are many more factors to consider than "finishing" when deciding on a watch. For example, when your GS spring drive needs serving, how's GS customer service? I've heard nothing but horrible experiences in this regard.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## bigclive2011

Quote “If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.”

What AD have you got then?? Haven’t got any of those where I live!! All mine have shelves empty of the Rolex that everyone wants, and would retain value!! All I can buy is gold or dressy watches, and these can be had at a discount.


----------



## T1meout

heineken4u said:


> You can buy an SBGE201 for a lot less than 50% of the price of a GMT master ii (msrp) , but that's not point. Value retention is what someone spoke about.
> 
> If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.
> 
> Conversely. I can buy an SBGE201 right now for 20% discount plus no tax off msrp from an AD. The second I wear this watch, the value has fallen even below then this "20% percent discounted price" I paid.
> 
> So when speaking of value retention, well, GS doesn't have much to offer. There is a reason why you can get GS brand new at heavily discounted. They don't hold value.
> 
> The number one thing GS fans like to regurgitate is... The finishing is second to none. There are many more factors to consider than "finishing" when deciding on a watch. For example, when your GS spring drive needs serving, how's GS customer service? I've heard nothing but horrible experiences in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


But the reality is that unless you've established some kind of relationship with an AD, often based on previous expenditures, or spent some considerable time on a waiting list, Rolex sports models can't be bought at msrp. Nowadays even preowned Rolex sports models command above msrp. Not to mention those sold at gray dealerships, where depending on the model, more often than not, they are severely overpriced, or whatever the market is willing to bear, depending on from which angle you look at it. Regardless, at those prices, the lightly used preowned GS, bought at 50% off msrp, is undoubtedly the better value proposition. Like the Rolex, one wouldn't stand to loose much money if one were to resell it.


----------



## heineken4u

T1meout said:


> But the reality is that unless you've established some kind of relationship with an AD, often based on previous expenditures, or spent some considerable time on a waiting list, Rolex sports models can't be bought at msrp. Nowadays even preowned Rolex sports models command above msrp. Not to mention those sold at gray dealerships, where depending on the model, more often than not, they are severely overpriced, or whatever the market is willing to bear, depending on from which angle you look at it. Regardless, at those prices, the lightly used preowned GS, bought at 50% off msrp, is undoubtedly the better value proposition. Like the Rolex, one wouldn't stand to loose much money if one were to resell it.


Your first sentence is where you're wrong though. Read a previous post from me above. Yes I got lucky, but people are getting lucky all the time. But you're not ever going to get a Rolex at msrp by calling ADs. You gotta put in some work.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex_TA

Alysandir said:


> Respectfully, not certain what this topic has to do with the "dwindling middle class."


It's just a high-flown phrase to start a thread about anything. 'Rolex is better than Grand Seiko, ho-ho'.


----------



## mato123

heineken4u said:


> You can buy an SBGE201 for a lot less than 50% of the price of a GMT master ii (msrp) , but that's not point. Value retention is what someone spoke about.
> 
> *If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.*
> 
> Conversely. I can buy an SBGE201 right now for 20% discount plus no tax off msrp from an AD. The second I wear this watch, the value has fallen even below then this "20% percent discounted price" I paid.
> 
> So when speaking of value retention, well, GS doesn't have much to offer. There is a reason why you can get GS brand new at heavily discounted. They don't hold value.
> 
> The number one thing GS fans like to regurgitate is... The finishing is second to none. There are many more factors to consider than "finishing" when deciding on a watch. For example, when your GS spring drive needs serving, how's GS customer service? I've heard nothing but horrible experiences in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


But we were comparing pre-owned watches, remember? You're the one who said buying a pre-owned Rolex is a much better "value-proposition".

When it comes to servicing, I don't know what horror stories have you heard. I'm pretty sure I can find you on internet horror stories about any watch brand. GS have 6 service points in Europe. I am pretty sure one of them (Italy) was not listed when I checked just month or so ago, so clearly they are growing. I believe 5-10 years down the road when my Spring Drive needs a service they will have even bigger presence and their service will be even better. I am not worried about that. When it comes to pricing I did ask an AD about servicing cost of SD. I was quoted 450 EUR. I think it's a fair price for such a unique movement and I believe it can run easily for 10 years without service.


----------



## T1meout

heineken4u said:


> Your first sentence is where you're wrong though. Read a previous post from me above. Yes I got lucky, but people are getting lucky all the time. But you're not ever going to get a Rolex at msrp by calling ADs. You gotta put in some work.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


Congratulations on your acquisition, but the Explorer isn't really that hard to source. Provided you've got the right connections or offer to pay full price, it shouldn't be that hard to get. But, I also recall reading that you were on the lookout for a submariner. So, you basically settled for a watch that wasn't your first choice. Try walking into an AD and buying one of those without any kind of report. Good luck with that. Regardless, nowadays the preowned GS, still is as good a value preposition.


----------



## BrianBinFL

heineken4u said:


> You can buy an SBGE201 for a lot less than 50% of the price of a GMT master ii (msrp) , but that's not point. Value retention is what someone spoke about.
> 
> If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.


Someone who buys a watch with consideration toward value retention is not buying watches for the reason I buy watches. I buy watches because the satisfaction I will get from the watch is worth the price I will pay for the watch. I could not care less what the resale value is, or even if there is a resale value. Honestly the resale value of my watches is an issue for my heirs, not me.



heineken4u said:


> Conversely. I can buy an SBGE201 right now for 20% discount plus no tax off msrp from an AD. The second I wear this watch, the value has fallen even below then this "20% percent discounted price" I paid.
> 
> So when speaking of value retention, well, GS doesn't have much to offer. There is a reason why you can get GS brand new at heavily discounted. They don't hold value.


I would submit that the extent to which the GS holds value is probably the least determinative factor in how much of a discount off suggested retail you can get. I'm sure there are factors I'm not considering but I would think that if the notion of "how much can I sell this for if I get in a pinch?" is so strong then maybe one ought not be purchasing frivolous luxury articles in the first place. And if one is going to put their emergency reserves in luxury goods they certainly should not be buying brand new ones, they should be buying used ones. Let the people who can afford to eat the depreciation without giving it a second thought do so. If you buy used then whatever you pay for it will be roughly what the watch will be worth later if you decide to sell it - assuming you don't bang it up.



heineken4u said:


> The number one thing GS fans like to regurgitate is... The finishing is second to none. There are many more factors to consider than "finishing" when deciding on a watch. For example, when your GS spring drive needs serving, how's GS customer service? I've heard nothing but horrible experiences in this regard.


It is a fact of human nature that we are much more apt to complain when we're unhappy than praise when we are happy. I suspect there are far more satisfied service customers than unsatisfied ones. That said, it is an inescapable truth that Rolex and Omega will give a service experience that is incomparably better than Grand Seiko. However, having given the matter a little thought, this should be surprising to nobody. I'll admit that I have ranted that Grand Seiko needs to take a lesson from Rolex and Omega on service if they want to play at this price point. Not long after that rant I gave the matter a bit of thought and realized that is comparing apples to oranges.

Rolex and Omega make around 800,000 and 500,000 watches a year respectively (round numbers from COSC data from years past). Grand Seiko makes around 50,000 watches a year (round numbers). So there are around 50,000 watches a year spread all over the entire world. That means the number that end up in any given country is VERY small. The number of new Grand Seikos delivered to any given country in a given year is probably in the 4-digits. How many luxury retailers and service centers do you think you can support in any given country, selling what is effectively a handful of watches in that country per year? Sure, Mother Seiko is pretty large, but Mother Seiko is also selling a ton of VERY economical watches. It is simply preposterous to compare what Rolex and Omega can do when selling HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of mass produced watches a year, at prices often far beyond GS, to what Grand Seiko can do selling TENS of thousands of hand finished watches, at what I feel are comparably modest prices given the effort required to make them.

That said, Grand Seiko should have a single, dedicated service point that handles only GS watches. For best availability of parts and skill that service point should probably be at the factory in Japan. The trade off for having a single point of service should be that point of service is top-drawer, with excellent tracking, automated communication, and reasonable turnaround times. I'm not saying that GS doesn't need to improve their service but I am saying it is preposterous to compare them to what Rolex and Omega can do. If you want the type of service that can be bought when you pay many thousands of dollars for a mass produced watch by a company that makes hundreds of thousands of them, then you simply don't want a Grand Seiko.

Grand Seiko is a boutique brand. They are small. Their production numbers are closer to Vacheron Constantine and Audemars Piguet than they are to Rolex and Omega. But of course GS doesn't fetch the per unit price of VC or AP. Low volume and comparatively low prices simply does not supply the dollars for lavish ancillaries. You're buying the watch. Buy it. Wear it. Love it. Or don't.


----------



## heineken4u

A pre-owned Rolex is a bettering value proposition then a pre-owned GS. The pre-owned Rolex will still hold its value (and possibly go up). A pre-owned GS will still take a hit on its second pre-owned sale. Not by much, but it will. Again, I just don't see that as "value".

Anyway, I've stated my thoughts/ opinions. I won't keep kicking the horse. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## heineken4u

T1meout said:


> Congratulations on your acquisition, but the Explorer isn't really that hard to source. Provided you've got the right connections or offer to pay full price, it shouldn't be that hard to get. But, I also recall reading that you were on the lookout for a submariner. So, you basically settled for a watch that wasn't your first choice. Try walking into an AD and buying one of those without any kind of report. Good luck with that. Regardless, nowadays the preowned GS, still is as good a value preposition.


Thank you.

The Submariner was my first choice initially. That being said, I never tried on a Sub or an Explorer. I was blown away with the Expoler when I tried it on so I took it. Settling never came into the equation though. Also, I am reading some threads on WUS that people are finding Subs in the cases once in a while, it does happen. That's why I decided to take matters into my own hands and go out and search.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## heineken4u

BrianBrinFl, I want to be clear. I do not purchase my watches for investment purposes. I purchase them only if I like them. But this thread was about value and not the intrinsic kind of value. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## ahonobaka

Spot on BrianBinFL, been wanting to echo that for quite some time!

At the end of the day, people buy watches for different reasons. If value retention factors more than personal preference of a watch (ie: buying simply because you like and enjoy the watch and aren't concerned of it's market value), then Grand Seiko is likely not for you. Stick with Rolex and Patek, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But really, IMO, (and I'm guilty of this as anyone else), if value retention is a factor, you likely aren't in the position to be buying a luxury item. If one argues they just want a one watch GADA, then again Rolex is the right choice (ubiquity factor, ease of servicing anywhere, resale value, etc.). 

Buy GS for the charm, hand finished warmth and uniqueness!


----------



## aalin13

My observation is that a large percentage of Rolex owners seem to be obsessed with value retention and growth. Truth is, if value retention is the number one priority, then there's not much point at looking at any brands beside Rolex and Patek, why bother going into any other sub forums and criticise the brand for value retention? Not to mention value retention is mainly driven by market forces, as these brands have always depreciated before any price rises in recent years.

I buy watches to enjoy, and any depreciation I take when I resale is just the cost of this hobby.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## ahonobaka

They say watches are the new bitcoin after all......


----------



## Chingoo

Look at e.g. the SBGA407.









It's the snowflake in blue, however the snowflake has titanium (more expensive), bracelet with polished links (more expensive) however they sell for the same price, and the SBGA407 is released recently.

Remember the bracelet alone is somewhere between 700-1000 USD when you purchase separately?

The SBGA407 should have been 1000 USD cheaper but also follows the path of more pricey releases


----------



## ahonobaka

They want to move upmarket; Honestly I'm OKAY with it so long as they make what I want (smaller diver please). They still speak more to me than a Rolex in similar price brackets, but it doesn't have to be one or the other, they each serve their purpose. Cold hard precision luxury, vs. warm hand finished luxury. Let's remember, GS is small batch with not the same output as Rolex, not even relatively close. We want better things like post purchase servicing/support, etc. but don't expect to pay more? It has to come from somewhere, and I'm prepared to pay for it personally. Meanwhile, you can still get all of the older models at the same price points...

Lately I've been cross shopping Omega and Rolex just for fun; I may get flack for this but they are no where near GS in terms of finishing. Maybe better/expensive materials and tighter tolerances overall for them, but one quick glance at the hands and it's easy to see. It's the thing that bugs me most about non GS watches admittedly and makes me think "cheap", hand finishing...


----------



## T1meout

Chingoo said:


> Look at e.g. the SBGA407.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the snowflake in blue, however the snowflake has titanium (more expensive), bracelet with polished links (more expensive) however they sell for the same price, and the SBGA407 is released recently.
> 
> Remember the bracelet alone is somewhere between 700-1000 USD when you purchase separately?
> 
> The SBGA407 should have been 1000 USD cheaper but also follows the path of more pricey releases


Buy what you like and can afford. Nothing else matters.


----------



## De Wolfe

Change the topic to " GS vs Rolex value retention" 

Two different brands, two different set of watches, choose what you are comfortable with.

Luxury was never an investment, and its a purchase that shouldn't make sense.


----------



## Chingoo

T1meout said:


> Chingoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at e.g. the SBGA407.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the snowflake in blue, however the snowflake has titanium (more expensive), bracelet with polished links (more expensive) however they sell for the same price, and the SBGA407 is released recently.
> 
> Remember the bracelet alone is somewhere between 700-1000 USD when you purchase separately?
> 
> The SBGA407 should have been 1000 USD cheaper but also follows the path of more pricey releases
> 
> 
> 
> Buy what you like and can afford. Nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

Surely agree, but would make sense if we can understand price difference between models? LX,GS, presage, all of it just doesn't make sense.

When you see a new model, you in general should be able to estimate the price range right? With Seiko and Grand Seiko you literally never know what the price would be. It's completely random.

I think even ablogtowatch called it the GS random price "greed" calculator.

Why should we accept everything blindly as a consumer. We should also think critically using our brain, not only our wallet.


----------



## T1meout

Chingoo said:


> Surely agree, but would make sense if we can understand price difference between models? LX,GS, presage, all of it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> When you see a new model, you in general should be able to estimate the price range right? With Seiko and Grand Seiko you literally never know what the price would be. It's completely random.
> 
> I think even ablogtowatch called it the GS random price "greed" calculator.
> 
> Why should we accept everything blindly as a consumer. We should also think critically using our brain, not only our wallet.


It's a verblen good. What is there to understand? Absolutely use your brain. But don't kid yourself. Unless purchased as an investment, which is downright foolish, there is nothing logical or rational about buying luxury timepieces. 90% of the thought and decision making process is purely sentimental. Does a five or six figure price tag on any wrist watch make sense? Are you able to discern where the value in such a product lies? If you're displeased with whatever Seiko or GS or insert whichever other brand you please here, charge for their manufactured watches, by all means feel totally free to take your business elsewhere.


----------



## RPF

Davido22 said:


> Introducing high end movements into other lines, Presage and Prospex, just confuses the separation that GS has taken recently.


What high-end movements? Spring Drive is a technology, just like the Swiss lever is a technology. Surely you won't equate the Swiss lever in a Patek with a Miyota, just because they share the same TYPE of escapement?


----------



## mato123

Chingoo said:


> Look at e.g. the SBGA407.
> 
> It's the snowflake in blue, however the snowflake has titanium (more expensive), bracelet with polished links (more expensive) however they sell for the same price, and the SBGA407 is released recently.
> 
> Remember the bracelet alone is somewhere between 700-1000 USD when you purchase separately?
> 
> The SBGA407 should have been 1000 USD cheaper but also follows the path of more pricey releases


Unfortunately this is a common trend. Seiko is not alone, it's pretty much the same across the whole watch industry (higher-end anyway). I remember, not that far ago, that Omega was selling Planet Ocean for slightly above £2k. Look at their price list today. At that time Rolex Sub was around £4k. They keep increasing prices regularly even on old models. I am not defending Seiko, just saying that the prices are insane in the whole industry and they keep growing. When you think about it, paying more than few hundred bucks for a watch is already insane, not to mention that most of us own several expensive watches. So we all crossed the line whether it's Rolex or GS. Having said that, I feel just a bit more comfortable paying 3-4k for a GS than 8-10k for a Rolex. But that's just me.


----------



## jandrese

These are both super tired topics. When GS first entered the US market they specifically and very plainly publicly described their market strategy. That was in 2010 I believe so there is nothing new regarding increased prices and upmarket moves in GS and mid-tier Seiko. 

Rolex vs GS or whatever in terms of investment. The market is clear. Currently, some Rolex models are investment grade, some models. The market is also fickle and will change suddenly for seemingly no reason. The leisure class will simple move on to something else. 

Buy whatever your want a whatever price you find acceptable. FWIW the "new" GS is the Citizen Chronomaster and 0100 mov't watches. GS or better quality for much less money.


----------



## T1meout

Well, despite predominantly owning expensive watches, I’ve just ordered a SKX007; and I intend to get as much pleasure out of wearing it as all my other watches.


----------



## BrianBinFL

How much it costs to produce the article has very little to do with what price to charge for said article. The cost to produce might lead to a decision not to produce it it all, but the price is generally set by using supply and demand to find the price that results in unit price elasticity. That is the optimal price for any good. Unit price elasticity is the point at which the money you lose due to lost sales from increasing the price one dollar exactly equals the money you gain on the units you did sell even after raising the price one dollar. Prices above or below the unit price elasticity result in less profit.

Remember earlier I said that the cost to produce might lead to a decision not to produce at all? If the cost to produce is greater than the unit price elasticity (the most profitable selling price), then one would be wise not to produce that product.

Given all of that, it is not unreasonable that a manufacturer might make one product that is more desirable than another product that is less desirable but more expensive to make. Based upon supply and demand the more desirable product might still sell at a higher price than the less desirable one, regardless of the lower cost to manufacture.


----------



## Independent George

GMT-man said:


> I never understood this "investment" part in buying watches. I do not invest in a dining room table, I do not invest in a laptop, I do not invest in a lawn mower. Not even a car. Why should I invest in a watch? I just keep buying them if I like them.


What you have listed are not luxury items.

A lot of people really should not be collecting luxury watches. I read somewhere that the prices of Swiss mechanical watches have increased over 400% since 2003. Or maybe that was just Rolex. I am not sure of the real numbers, but I think it is safe to post that the prices of Swiss Luxury mechanical watches have far outpaced inflation and wage increases.

My guess is that many "collectors" really are not luxury item connoisseurs. I have seen enough wrist shots to conclude that the vast majority of collectors aren't drinking $250 bottles of Penfolds wine, decorating with Swarovski crystals, or dressing in Dolce & Gabbana. Maybe their other luxury is driving German cars.

So it's a major, serious expenditure for many collectors to pay $5,000 for a trinket. If, say, a watch loses 50% of the price paid when you take the tag off and size it to your wrist, then by purchasing certain watches, you have "thrown away $2,500", and most "collectors" and men on this board don't believe they have $2,500 to piss away. So the emphasis on value retention. Which makes sense.

Just about every day there is a For Sale Post from someone who is "thinning" the collection. Wanna guess how many "thinning the collection" sales posts are because they have just too many watches, or if they have too many watches they can realistically afford to keep.


----------



## DustinS

heineken4u said:


> Also, buying a pre-owned Rolex is a much better "value-proposition" than a GS. Not sure why you think otherwise. But anyway, I didn't mean to high jack the thread. I just found myself agreeing with comments made by David.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


if value is "resale" value then agree. Otherwise used rolex seems like a horrible value to me. Especially if you get their older bracelets.


----------



## DustinS

heineken4u said:


> Your first sentence is where you're wrong though. Read a previous post from me above. Yes I got lucky, but people are getting lucky all the time. But you're not ever going to get a Rolex at msrp by calling ADs. *You gotta put in some work. *
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


Unpaid work is a cost and one that I won't get back when selling the watch (which will require more work). All that comes out of the "value retention".


----------



## bluedialer

It doesn't matter, because Rolex are freaking boring to me.
And when I buy watches, I do it with no intention of selling them.

I recognize many have the exact opposite sentiments.

I do agree that at any considerably higher pricepoint, Grand Seiko unless appropriately enhanced in quality are no longer a worthy purchase to me. 
The $10k or over realm is for precious metals, premium complications, and significantly more well finished movements. (hence again, Rolex is thumbs down as well)


----------



## al358

This thread pains me, I buy and wear what I like.... I am blessed to have three GS's in my collection and enjoy them when they are on my wrist...JMHO


----------



## ccl127

There is something to be said about a watch that you can buy from an AD (if you can get it) and then sell a few years later for the same or more.


----------



## BrianBinFL

ccl127 said:


> There is something to be said about a watch that you can buy from an AD (if you can get it) and then sell a few years later for the same or more.


That may be so, but I can't imagine buying a luxury watch I'd be willing to sell 3 years later. But different strokes for different folks.


----------



## yngrshr

heineken4u said:


> You can buy an SBGE201 for a lot less than 50% of the price of a GMT master ii (msrp) , but that's not point. Value retention is what someone spoke about.
> 
> If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.
> 
> Conversely. I can buy an SBGE201 right now for 20% discount plus no tax off msrp from an AD. The second I wear this watch, the value has fallen even below then this "20% percent discounted price" I paid.
> 
> So when speaking of value retention, well, GS doesn't have much to offer. There is a reason why you can get GS brand new at heavily discounted. They don't hold value.
> 
> The number one thing GS fans like to regurgitate is... The finishing is second to none. There are many more factors to consider than "finishing" when deciding on a watch. For example, when your GS spring drive needs serving, how's GS customer service? I've heard nothing but horrible experiences in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


This post reads like someone who thinks Heineken or Stella is a great "value proposition" for a "craft" beer (even though neither is remotely craft).


----------



## heineken4u

yngrshr said:


> This post reads like someone who thinks Heineken or Stella is a great "value proposition" for a "craft" beer (even though neither is remotely craft).


No. Heineken is a .... beer. That's why it's for you.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

heineken4u said:


> No. Heineken is a .... beer. That's why it's for you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


The point is, you're completely focused on name recognition and ignoring literally everything else. I mean, you do you and all. But it's abundantly clear that you are hyper-focused on name recognition. And that is obviously important for some.


----------



## heineken4u

I'm not hyper focused on name brand recognition. I just don't see GS as a good value proposition for me. I like the spring drive movement, but I find the quality of their bracelets and clasps to be lacking, they are quite thick watches comparably speaking, and they don't hold their value very well. Because of those reasons I went elsewhere. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

heineken4u said:


> I'm not hyper focused on name brand recognition. I just don't see GS as a good value proposition for me. I like the spring drive movement, but I find the quality of their bracelets and clasps to be lacking, they are quite thick watches comparably speaking, and they don't hold their value very well. Because of those reasons I went elsewhere.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


I find these arguments to be fairly uncompelling. Your primary focus seems to be simply on *maybe* not losing money on resale. I'm not really sure why that would matter all that much, but you're placing significant value on the name and potential resale value over enjoyment of a watch. The whole used Rolex vs. new Grand Seiko argument earlier in the thread really drove this home, frankly.

It seems to me a relatively strange way of viewing a hobby, but there are a number of folks that fall into this group. Again, if that's what you're getting out of it and that is what makes the hobby enjoyable, that's obviously fine. But I think the responses you've gotten in this thread address this quite well.


----------



## aalin13

Like my last post, I don't get why this talk of value retention and price increases are targeted at GS. This applies to basically every watch brand outside of Rolex and Patek. Omega is probably the closest competitor to Rolex, and look at the second hand prices on f29, definitely well below MSRP.

Why is GS being singled out for wanting to keep up with the ever increasing prices of the market as a whole? And why is GS being singled out for poor value retention, when Rolex is really more an anomaly than the norm?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

aalin13 said:


> Like my last post, I don't get why this talk of value retention and price increases are targeted at GS. This applies to basically every watch brand outside of Rolex and Patek. Omega is probably the closest competitor to Rolex, and look at the second hand prices on f29, definitely well below MSRP.
> 
> Why is GS being singled out for wanting to keep up with the ever increasing prices of the market as a whole? And why is GS being singled out for poor value retention, when Rolex is really more an anomaly than the norm?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Because reasons.

I guess.

I'm trying to figure this out myself. I've seen similar arguments elsewhere and they normally stem from folks who dislike the fact that some feel that GS offers a better piece for the price than Rolex in a number of areas.

That is normally where I find the argument coming from.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ahonobaka

Love the conversation gents; Indeed, Rolex/Patek are the anomalies and not the norm. I also think it's weird to want to sell a watch I bought because I obviously liked it enough to buy to keep, but as it was said there are different reasons people buy watches. Stick with Rolex if you plan to resell and can't afford the hit; I'd still argue that you're not in position to buy a luxury watch though if value retention means that much. Sure no one wants to lose a dollar, but you have to pay to play, and luxury is just that; Luxury. There is nothing wrong with spending less on a solid Oris, Longines, Seiko, etc.

I'm not a car guy, but I can't imagine a Porsche guy being concerned about "value retention", etc. Strange that this is so prevalent a consideration in luxury watches but perhaps that's more representative of the economic state of the average consumer than anything else.


----------



## Docholiday11x

I don't understand why GS doesn't just make more proportionally desirable watches. With the increased prices and increased size I can't imagine them competing with the likes of rolex like they intend to 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## blowlamp

GS bracelets and clasps are better made than Rolex - they just don't have a spring-pin micro adjust feature or the half-link thing.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

Chingoo said:


> Look at e.g. the SBGA407.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the snowflake in blue, however the snowflake has titanium (more expensive), bracelet with polished links (more expensive) however they sell for the same price, and the SBGA407 is released recently.
> 
> Remember the bracelet alone is somewhere between 700-1000 USD when you purchase separately?
> 
> The SBGA407 should have been 1000 USD cheaper but also follows the path of more pricey releases


"Should have"? No offense, but should've only goes so far in luxury watch discussions. I'm not saying I would pay this price, but I don't think it is really that incomprehensible. It is the first time the snowflake has ever been released in blue and that is the intangible detail you are leaving out: demand. There is a projected higher demand that justifies this price, not just specs. This is about supply and demand not, "It costs x to make y so it should cost $z" This is across the board. As for me, I agree, the original snowflake is the better value, but that is not all that is at play here.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

aalin13 said:


> Like my last post, I don't get why this talk of value retention and price increases are targeted at GS. This applies to basically every watch brand outside of Rolex and Patek. Omega is probably the closest competitor to Rolex, and look at the second hand prices on f29, definitely well below MSRP.
> 
> Why is GS being singled out for wanting to keep up with the ever increasing prices of the market as a whole? And why is GS being singled out for poor value retention, when Rolex is really more an anomaly than the norm?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Couldn't agree more. Value retention is not the norm. Take a look around the sales forum if you need any proof.
But GS always seems to be held to a different standard. The "greed" comment from earlier and "I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers" demonstrates what is odd when it comes to the Seiko and GS conversation (or the fact the middle class is being referenced in the thread title, albeit in a way that was never clearly explained) They make watches for a profit, just like everyone else, but there seems to be this idea that they owe something to the average Joe and that they are being traitorous and greedy by moving upmarket, yet these types of comments rarely, if ever, surface in discussions about other brands. If that is your concern, take on the watch industry as a whole (also, ss models are still far below anything Rolex is offering, but everyone apparently enjoys ignoring this and going straight to their pm models amd other LE's.).


----------



## heavyweather

I didn't purchase my Snowflake because I was thinking about the over/under and longterm resale aspect. Quite the opposite –.it is an object of pure desire, and I intend to keep it forever and make lots of memories while wearing it. I got married wearing it, for heaven's sake. I can't sell it now or ever for immaterial reasons of passion and emotion. So sure it's a shame that the thing immediately "loses" monetary value, I suppose everyone has to make that calculation of whether the vague subjective pleasure of wearing it equates to whatever financial loss you've accrued by doing so.


----------



## yngrshr

heavyweather said:


> I didn't purchase my Snowflake because I was thinking about the over/under and longterm resale aspect. Quite the opposite -.it is an object of pure desire, and I intend to keep it forever and make lots of memories while wearing it. I got married wearing it, for heaven's sake. I can't sell it now or ever for immaterial reasons of passion and emotion. So sure it's a shame that the thing immediately "loses" monetary value, I suppose everyone has to make that calculation of whether the vague subjective pleasure of wearing it equates to whatever financial loss you've accrued by doing so.


This is why I collect watches as well. It's so odd to see some so obsessed about resale value.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## T1meout

Docholiday11x said:


> With the increased prices and increased size I can't imagine them competing with the likes of rolex like they intend to


O, but do they?


----------



## BrianBinFL

Docholiday11x said:


> I don't understand why GS doesn't just make more proportionally desirable watches. With the increased prices and increased size I can't imagine them competing with the likes of rolex like they intend to


I have not seen anything that would suggest that Grand Seiko wants to compete with Rolex. In fact quite the opposite.

I _have_ seen an article where Mr. Hattori said he wants to move away from "two Seikos": the ultra-economical Seikos and the fine-watch Seikos, presumably eschewing the former and moving toward the latter.

Grand Seiko is the antithesis of Rolex. It would be impossible for Grand Seiko to compete with Rolex without becoming a completely different product - one most of us here in F642 wouldn't want.


----------



## gyrotourbillon007

yngrshr said:


> This is why I collect watches as well. It's so odd to see some so obsessed about resale value.


Just a different reasoning in collecting watches. My dad advised me since i was a kid to only buy Rolex and Patek since they don't lose value. The rest loses money. 20 years later, I went from being that to just buying timepieces I enjoy.

I see where the OP is going initially. The Snowflake SBGA011 in Australia is around AU$7600 and you can get it for $6000AUD from an AD. That's a lot of watch for the money you paid. A decent amount of Australians can spend $6k given the speedmaster is around that price. Now, the SBGA211 is AU$8400. For you to reach that $6k threshold would mean you either get the watch at close to 28% (better AD relationship or good haggling skills) or get it at 20% and claim the tax when leaving the country. Now imagine that sort of discount with the old pricing.

The very nice price point is what got me to Grand Seiko. The watch you get for the money is good value, but with the recent Baselworld release it's just going astray and pushing it in the upper end. However, based on the previous thread here about "Omega vs Grand Seiko: servicing", GS has a lot more to prove.


----------



## T1meout

gyrotourbillon007 said:


> GS has a lot more to *im*prove.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## yngrshr

gyrotourbillon007 said:


> Just a different reasoning in collecting watches. My dad advised me since i was a kid to only buy Rolex and Patek since they don't lose value. The rest loses money. 20 years later, I went from being that to just buying timepieces I enjoy.
> 
> I see where the OP is going initially. The Snowflake SBGA011 in Australia is around AU$7600 and you can get it for $6000AUD from an AD. That's a lot of watch for the money you paid. A decent amount of Australians can spend $6k given the speedmaster is around that price. Now, the SBGA211 is AU$8400. For you to reach that $6k threshold would mean you either get the watch at close to 28% (better AD relationship or good haggling skills) or get it at 20% and claim the tax when leaving the country. Now imagine that sort of discount with the old pricing.
> 
> The very nice price point is what got me to Grand Seiko. The watch you get for the money is good value, but with the recent Baselworld release it's just going astray and pushing it in the upper end. However, based on the previous thread here about "Omega vs Grand Seiko: servicing", GS has a lot more to prove.


This is mostly fair. I just find it pretty silly for the one poster in here making these weird references to new Rolex pieces vs used GS pieces. It's odd and just doesn't fit the discussion. It looks like a weird humble brag that went wrong.


----------



## heavyweather

There is something slightly ominous about the upmarket move GS is making right now. It's a fair description of the world that the wealthiest people seem to be getting even wealthier, the poor are just as poor (but have cool phones now) and the middle class in western countries are feeling the squeeze of globalization while we see an uptick in newly minted middle class folks from China (being as they are the prime beneficiaries of neoliberal globalism).

I've seen this in my own business, that small-to-medium companies can no longer afford me, but larger, wealthier, more successful firms are doing better than ever. The wealth redistribution is very lopsidedly going to the very tippy top. Thus, why bother going after the vanishing middle when you can cater to the fat cats? We'll see more five and six digit Grand Seikos before we see more fantastic value propositions like the original Snowflake.


----------



## ahonobaka

heavyweather said:


> There is something slightly ominous about the upmarket move GS is making right now. It's a fair description of the world that the wealthiest people seem to be getting even wealthier, the poor are just as poor (but have cool phones now) and the middle class in western countries are feeling the squeeze of globalization while we see an uptick in newly minted middle class folks from China (being as they are the prime beneficiaries of neoliberal globalism).
> 
> I've seen this in my own business, that small-to-medium companies can no longer afford me, but larger, wealthier, more successful firms are doing better than ever. The wealth redistribution is very lopsidedly going to the very tippy top. Thus, why bother going after the vanishing middle when you can cater to the fat cats? We'll see more five and six digit Grand Seikos before we see more fantastic value propositions like the original Snowflake.


Thank you for bringing it to the true topic at hand! Wealth is redistributing, the masses can't afford higher prices so they only try to attain things that hold value or they can "invest" in, all while brands like Seiko/GS try to move upmarket along with the likes of Rolex who are already increasing prices as well (c'mon, a two tone Sea-Dweller...). I don't see this just in watches or luxury, but even every day things like grocery prices etc


----------



## DustinS

gyrotourbillon007 said:


> Just a different reasoning in collecting watches. My dad advised me since i was a kid to only buy Rolex and Patek since they don't lose value. The rest loses money. 20 years later, I went from being that to just buying timepieces I enjoy.


Why do you care about value? Do you buy your panties and expect a resale? Your tampons? Do you think your bra will be worth as much as you paid? So why your watch? Your car will drop in value and if you drive it for fun it will drop MORE. So I ask seriously if you want a watch that you'll wear and beat to hell (because why get a watch you don't beat to hell), why does the sale value matter? If it turns out it has a good resale value (which most GS do) that's bonus points. But again do your buy paper towls and think you can get your money back?


----------



## DustinS

heavyweather said:


> There is something slightly ominous about the upmarket move GS is making right now. It's a fair description of the world that the wealthiest people seem to be getting even wealthier, the poor are just as poor (but have cool phones now) and the middle class in western countries are feeling the squeeze of globalization while we see an uptick in newly minted middle class folks from China (being as they are the prime beneficiaries of neoliberal globalism).
> 
> I've seen this in my own business, that small-to-medium companies can no longer afford me, but larger, wealthier, more successful firms are doing better than ever. The wealth redistribution is very lopsidedly going to the very tippy top. Thus, why bother going after the vanishing middle when you can cater to the fat cats? We'll see more five and six digit Grand Seikos before we see more fantastic value propositions like the original Snowflake.


The middle class being lost are becoming upper class 90 times out of 100...


----------



## gyrotourbillon007

T1meout said:


> Fixed that for you.


Ha. True. thanks ))



DustinS said:


> Why do you care about value? Do you buy your panties and expect a resale? Your tampons? Do you think your bra will be worth as much as you paid? So why your watch? Your car will drop in value and if you drive it for fun it will drop MORE. So I ask seriously if you want a watch that you'll wear and beat to hell (because why get a watch you don't beat to hell), why does the sale value matter? If it turns out it has a good resale value (which most GS do) that's bonus points. But again do your buy paper towls and think you can get your money back?


You're comparing everyday items that everybody needs and uses to what is now deemed a luxury product which how my dad views watches.


----------



## heavyweather

DustinS said:


> The middle class being lost are becoming upper class 90 times out of 100...


How right you are sir. Now just this way I have a remarkable bridge to sell you - you wouldn't believe the resale value!


----------



## fish70

DustinS said:


> The middle class being lost are becoming upper class 90 times out of 100...


Most of the "middle class" people I know are living beyond their means.


----------



## GMT-man

fish70 said:


> Most of the "middle class" people I know are living beyond their means.


A recent study found that about 45% (+- few points, can not remember exactly) of US households do not have a $500 buffer for sudden expenses. So, where is the middle class?

Also the short term high interest lending problem is exploding at least here in Finland. Mostly uneducated (no interest in studying) and unemployed (no interest either, no skills) wanting to have newest phones, TVs etc like everybody else. Borrowing money is advertised as a perfectly normal way of getting things right away.

Are people actually so stupid that they buy luxury watches, or any watch really, with financing the sellers advertise?


----------



## GrussGott

gyrotourbillon007 said:


> You're comparing everyday items that everybody needs and uses to what is now deemed a luxury product which how my dad views watches.


The lost point is the hedging: when you're comparing between the purchase of two things, if one has a much healthier resale value, _*and you don't have a preference between the two*_, you'd be stupid to buy the one with the lesser resale value. Said differently, resale value is a hedge against you changing your mind or having a change in circumstances.

So if we're talking GS vs Rolex, and we all agree that Rolex has the healthier resale, _*assuming no preference between the two*_, Rolex wins. If you do prefer the GS, then you may be paying a price with the lost hedge. Further, if you're a flipper, you'd also be better off with the Rolex. The principle is the same with cars, tampons, or paper towels.

All of that said, my 2 cents, if you're worried about the re-sale value of your watch, you can't afford the watch.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

gyrotourbillon007 said:


> The very nice price point is what got me to Grand Seiko. The watch you get for the money is good value, but with the recent Baselworld release it's just going astray and pushing it in the upper end. However, based on the previous thread here about "Omega vs Grand Seiko: servicing", GS has a lot more to prove.


A Snowflake new at $5,800 (that is assuming you don't receive a discount. Other entry level mechanicals can be found brand new for less than $4,000) is still a lot of watch for the money and again, Baselworld LE's are chest puffing exercises, so I don't understand why people keep going back to them. 
Also, GS value retention is better than a lot of brands in my opinion. People talk as if you are immediately losing half the value. If pre-owned Snowflakes are selling for $2,900 somewhere, please let me know. You are hard pressed to find one for less than $4,500. They generally hover around $5,000, give or take.
I would say their quartz watches retain value far better than most quartz watches. An Omega AT quartz which sells for about $2,800 can be found for around $1,000 pre-owned, whereas an entry level sbgx can be purchased brand new for $2,200, and generally sells used for around $1,500. Not great, but you are not losing more than half the value like you are on an Omega quartz AT. Is this comparable to Rolex? No, but why would anyone in their right mind expect it to be. 
As for the service center, no excuse. I totally agree on that point.


----------



## Alex_TA

I personally sold 2years old Sbga031 for 60% of the price which I paid for it (new).

It's better than my experience in Omega and far better than Zenith.

Now, all this Rolex talk. Only few models are keeping the value: Daytona, Sub and lately GMT. All others: Explorers, Datejusts, all gold models etc are losers.

Buy your Sub and die of boredom 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rdoder

I agree, I think the pricey GS's from Baselworld is a total, "Look what we could charge for GS" upmarket move. It's working very well because people are so focused on that! LOL Same with Seiko LX. "Look what we could charge for a SEIKO!" LOL

Seiko/GS is forced by cell phone and smart watch to go upmarket. If it's not expensive (seeming) enough, people don't want it, that's how it works.

Ever watch a Producer Michael luxury watch video when he's at a watch store? Sometimes he'd keep asking for the prices of different watches. At least some people (me among them) can't tell what the price should be, and need to be told, as an indicator of quality/desirability. By high MSRP, GS is saying, "This is high quality brand/stuff, worth your money." Perception is very important for Veblen goods.

As for resale value, I agree, if I worry too much about it, for sure I can't afford it. My way to not worry about resale value is to not over-buy too many expensive watches. I bought two, that's enough for me.


----------



## fish70

Mr.Jones82 said:


> A Snowflake new at $5,800 (that is assuming you don't receive a discount. Other entry level mechanicals can be found brand new for less than $4,000) is still a lot of watch for the money and again, Baselworld LE's are chest puffing exercises, so I don't understand why people keep going back to them.
> Also, GS value retention is better than a lot of brands in my opinion. People talk as if you are immediately losing half the value. If pre-owned Snowflakes are selling for $2,900 somewhere, please let me know. You are hard pressed to find one for less than $4,500. They generally hover around $5,000, give or take.
> I would say their quartz watches retain value far better than most quartz watches. An Omega AT quartz which sells for about $2,800 can be found for around $1,000 pre-owned, whereas an entry level sbgx can be purchased brand new for $2,200, and generally sells used for around $1,500. Not great, but you are not losing more than half the value like you are on an Omega quartz AT. Is this comparable to Rolex? No, but why would anyone in their right mind expect it to be.
> As for the service center, no excuse. I totally agree on that point.


Oh man, where can I get one of those used quartz ATs for less than 1K. Seriously, I would like to buy one.


----------



## Mr.Jones82

fish70 said:


> Oh man, where can I get one of those used quartz ATs for less than 1K. Seriously, I would like to buy one.


They pop up in the sales forum. I saw one a week ago for less than a $1,000. There is currently a quartz SMP for less than $1,000, too. Look around, there are probably plenty more to be had...but do yourself a favor and get a GS HAQ quartz. I have seen the AT quartz models in the metal and they look cheap, whereas with GS 9f models you get all the fit and finish you expect from a GS.


----------



## heavyweather

Mr.Jones82 said:


> They pop up in the sales forum. I saw one a week ago for less than a $1,000. There is currently a quartz SMP for less than $1,000, too. Look around, there are probably plenty more to be had...but do yourself a favor and get a GS HAQ quartz. I have seen the AT quartz models in the metal and they look cheap, whereas with GS 9f models you get all the fit and finish you expect from a GS.


I've been looking at Rolexes in the windows of some jewelers in NYC and I've been super underwhelmed by everything. Compared to GS, the finishing is so plain and uninspired. The Explorer and Milgauss are still kind of tool-watchy and so the simpler finishing works, but everything else is so bleh. Grand Seiko really spoils you. So while they may lose some resale value compared to a 'lex, the value of ownership seems higher if you appreciate the actual construction and finishing. It's all subjective of course.


----------



## Trel

heavyweather said:


> I've been looking at Rolexes in the windows of some jewelers in NYC and I've been super underwhelmed by everything.


I feel the same way. I have the utmost respect for Rolex (the company), but Rolex (the watches) are just...boring. I've tried new and vintage, DJs, the Explorer II, three different Subs and all I'm ever left with is the feeling that I'm missing something because it doesn't create a *spark*. (At the very least, it's easy to avoid losing money when C&R'ing a Rolex.)
It's not a matter of prestige or cost, but I think it's ubiquity. I've seen so many of nearly every Rolex model in my life that they've become part of the background. As in, "Cool, I've got this undeniably great watch...which is new to me and I'm already intimately familiar with past the point of boredom." I feel like it is the watch I would wear if I wanted a good, cool watch for the rest of my life, but also knew nothing about watches. It's like a standard-issue "you are now a successful person" watch. Just a feeling, I get.

By contrast, the 9F GMT I just got definitely sparks. There's so many little details you can get lost in, the proportions, the finishing, the dial work, the silky bracelet, or just watching the movement of the second hand. It's all completely new to me and it comes without any narrative. It's not James Bond's watch. It's no one's watch except mine. I have the watch with the goofy yellow smile and no one else, so the watch's story is written by me...(except the other 799 people who got one, but I don't know any of them personally so it doesn't count.)


----------



## DustinS

GMT-man said:


> A recent study found that about 45% (+- few points, can not remember exactly) of US households do not have a $500 buffer for sudden expenses. So, where is the middle class?
> 
> Also the short term high interest lending problem is exploding at least here in Finland. Mostly uneducated (no interest in studying) and unemployed (no interest either, no skills) wanting to have newest phones, TVs etc like everybody else. Borrowing money is advertised as a perfectly normal way of getting things right away.
> 
> Are people actually so stupid that they buy luxury watches, or any watch really, with financing the sellers advertise?


My boss who her and her husband have 6 figure incomes, openly admits she lives pay check to pay check. mean while I keep finding new stupid ways to spend money and I still find my bank account growing. Some people are just really good at spending.


----------



## heineken4u

GrussGott said:


> The lost point is the hedging: when you're comparing between the purchase of two things, if one has a much healthier resale value, _*and you don't have a preference between the two*_, you'd be stupid to buy the one with the lesser resale value. Said differently, resale value is a hedge against you changing your mind or having a change in circumstances.
> 
> So if we're talking GS vs Rolex, and we all agree that Rolex has the healthier resale, _*assuming no preference between the two*_, Rolex wins. If you do prefer the GS, then you may be paying a price with the lost hedge. Further, if you're a flipper, you'd also be better off with the Rolex. The principle is the same with cars, tampons, or paper towels.
> 
> All of that said, my 2 cents, if you're worried about the re-sale value of your watch, you can't afford the watch.


Thank you for articulating what I was trying to say, but failed to do.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## DustinS

GrussGott said:


> The lost point is the hedging: when you're comparing between the purchase of two things, if one has a much healthier resale value, _*and you don't have a preference between the two*_, you'd be stupid to buy the one with the lesser resale value. Said differently, resale value is a hedge against you changing your mind or having a change in circumstances.
> 
> So if we're talking GS vs Rolex, and we all agree that Rolex has the healthier resale, _*assuming no preference between the two*_, Rolex wins. If you do prefer the GS, then you may be paying a price with the lost hedge. Further, if you're a flipper, you'd also be better off with the Rolex. The principle is the same with cars, tampons, or paper towels.
> 
> All of that said, my 2 cents, if you're worried about the re-sale value of your watch, you can't afford the watch.


Let me play devils advocate for a moment and ask perhaps a crazy question. In no purchase I make in life outside of an investment and PERHAPS a house would I ever even consider that resale is even an option. Even with cars I assume I'll have it until it is of effectively no value. Having been on these forums I am aware that there is this world that both knows resale and cares about it, but I remain skeptical that normal people think this way.

For me if I were truly 100% unsure, the resale value would be about the same as saying the box for one of the pieces was made from recycled paper. I'd have forgotten which brand did that as soon as you said it. Same with the idea of resale value. I just can't for the life of me imagine being in a place where I'm buying a freaking WATCH and at some point I think "I wonder what it will be worth in 20 years". I mean if you make so much money that these aren't meaningful purchases then why would you care about resale? If this is a meaningful purchase then don't you take the time to pick the one you like more? And even if you're torn, would you still be pretty sure about the purchase before you do it? I just can't understand making a purchase that's meaningful to you and being so unsure that resale was meaningful.

Anyway I clearly just don't get it.


----------



## jandrese

Why won't some mod kill this thread. Why do the most inane threads get the most replies? This makes us all dumber.


----------



## GrussGott

DustinS said:


> If this is a meaningful purchase then don't you take the time to pick the one you like more? And even if you're torn, would you still be pretty sure about the purchase before you do it? *I just can't understand making a purchase that's meaningful to you and being so unsure that resale was meaningful. * Anyway I clearly just don't get it.


I'm in my 40s which is old enough to know that whatever I think I want today, meaningful or not, it's probably not what i'll want tomorrow.

For example, I'm a car guy, and 15 years ago a convertible sports car was clearly the moron's choice. Yet I've had one for almost a decade because I tried one and it made the experience so much better I can't imagine not having it. For me, it's definitely a luxury item, definitely "meaningful", but I'm also on my 3rd in 8 years because fickle.

So I don't know what's normal, but as Robert DeNiro said, "Lady, I never walk into a place I don't know how to walk out of"

Which is a great philosophy when dropping big$ on spendy shiit.


----------



## RPF

DustinS said:


> Let me play devils advocate for a moment and ask perhaps a crazy question. In no purchase I make in life outside of an investment and PERHAPS a house would I ever even consider that resale is even an option. Even with cars I assume I'll have it until it is of effectively no value. Having been on these forums I am aware that there is this world that both knows resale and cares about it, but I remain skeptical that normal people think this way.
> 
> For me if I were truly 100% unsure, the resale value would be about the same as saying the box for one of the pieces was made from recycled paper. I'd have forgotten which brand did that as soon as you said it. Same with the idea of resale value. I just can't for the life of me imagine being in a place where I'm buying a freaking WATCH and at some point I think "I wonder what it will be worth in 20 years". I mean if you make so much money that these aren't meaningful purchases then why would you care about resale? If this is a meaningful purchase then don't you take the time to pick the one you like more? And even if you're torn, would you still be pretty sure about the purchase before you do it? I just can't understand making a purchase that's meaningful to you and being so unsure that resale was meaningful.
> 
> Anyway I clearly just don't get it.


Resale only works for select models of patek and Rolex. Almost everything else are stillborn propositions. If that is ok with you, by all means limit yourself.

Otherwise lots of choices from the rest of the universe.


----------



## DustinS

GrussGott said:


> I'm in my 40s which is old enough to know that whatever I think I want today, meaningful or not, it's probably not what i'll want tomorrow.
> 
> For example, I'm a car guy, and 15 years ago a convertible sports car was clearly the moron's choice. Yet I've had one for almost a decade because I tried one and it made the experience so much better I can't imagine not having it. For me, it's definitely a luxury item, definitely "meaningful", but I'm also on my 3rd in 8 years because fickle.
> 
> So I don't know what's normal, but as Robert DeNiro said, "Lady, I never walk into a place I don't know how to walk out of"
> 
> Which is a great philosophy when dropping big$ on spendy shiit.


Drive a car long enough and there's virtually no resale value which really goes back to my point. Given that time line, I'm not sure it's prudent to take any assumptions on resale with watch. So you'd have to be in a place where you're possibly sell it in a very short time line.


----------



## DustinS

RPF said:


> Resale only works for select models of patek and Rolex. Almost everything else are stillborn propositions. If that is ok with you, by all means limit yourself.
> 
> Otherwise lots of choices from the rest of the universe.


I have just for fun looked into the resale on some of my other watches. Honestly, i've yet to see a watch where the "losses" were bad. Even my Tag seems to have held up just fine. I'm not sure what people expect in return for years of wear on a watch but that anyone would buy their used up goods is kinda shocking on my end. The fact that they retain SO much value is kinda jarring.

Point being even if I understood going on with an exit plan, it doesn't look like the exit plan on a grand seiko is bad at all.


----------



## Hamstur

At least in the US, it seems like both high-tier GS and mid-tier Prospex/Presage Seiko brands are only bought by the niche market enthusiasts. Before I got into watches, I certainly never heard of them because they aren't the typical department store lines.

Meanwhile, the enthusiasts and fanboys are emotion driven and generally buy regardless of price. Keep making $300 Prospex models and $3000 GS, but launch new $5000 Prospex and $7000 GS and see if the fans still keep buying because it's shiny and new. It's a good gamble with nothing to lose.


----------



## RPF

DustinS said:


> I have just for fun looked into the resale on some of my other watches. Honestly, i've yet to see a watch where the "losses" were bad. Even my Tag seems to have held up just fine. I'm not sure what people expect in return for years of wear on a watch but that anyone would buy their used up goods is kinda shocking on my end. The fact that they retain SO much value is kinda jarring.
> 
> Point being even if I understood going on with an exit plan, it doesn't look like the exit plan on a grand seiko is bad at all.


It's all relative. There's Rolex and Patek, then there is everything else. They give new meaning to the word "second hand".

Have you checked out the price of a decrepit Rolex GMT from the 60s? If it's in tatters but all original, more power to the owner.

CRAZY.


----------



## chillwill120

jandrese said:


> Why won't some mod kill this thread. Why do the most inane threads get the most replies? This makes us all dumber.


You don't have to read or post.


----------



## yngrshr

heineken4u said:


> Thank you for articulating what I was trying to say, but failed to do.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


It's not that you failed to say it, but you flat out said something different. Your very first post in this thread mentions the main reason for not purchasing as the value proposition (you were explicitly worried your watch would lose "half" its value immediately).

That's not what this poster has suggested. He's put forth something that is basically a complete hypothetical (since it's rare that someone would like two very different watches truly equally).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heineken4u

yngrshr said:


> It's not that you failed to say it, but you flat out said something different. Your very first post in this thread mentions the main reason for not purchasing as the value proposition (you were explicitly worried your watch would lose "half" its value immediately).
> 
> That's not what this poster has suggested. He's put forth something that is basically a complete hypothetical (since it's rare that someone would like two very different watches truly equally).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're becoming tiring already.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

Alex_TA said:


> I personally sold 2years old Sbga031 for 60% of the price which I paid for it (new).
> 
> It's better than my experience in Omega and far better than Zenith.
> 
> Now, all this Rolex talk. Only few models are keeping the value: Daytona, Sub and lately GMT. All others: Explorers, Datejusts, all gold models etc are losers.
> 
> Buy your Sub and die of boredom
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I bought and sold my SBGR053 after 2 years. Beautiful watch, but the thickness made it uncomfortable to wear. The bracelet was uncomfortable too so I had it on leather mostly. Accuracy was good (+5s/day). Lost 23% of what I paid ($2500), and I got a good deal on it. Still, it was nice while I had it, and it was fun souvenir visiting Japan.

Moved to a used 114270 as a replacement. Tremendous watch. More expensive ($4150), but also more iconic. Bracelet felt cheap (some say charming, but it felt like it was from the 80s) but the thinness of the watch made it extremely comfortable to wear, unlike the thick SBGR053. Accuracy was great (+3/day). When I sold it after a year of ownership, I made $400. So I was paid $400 to wear the watch for a year.

Now, it's subjective which one is better. I enjoyed both for what they were.

I wear what I like first and foremost. Wearability, comfort, aesthetics, etc etc.

But I've got to say that being paid to wear a gorgeous watch is the way to go.


----------



## GrussGott

zetaplus93 said:


> I bought and sold my SBGR053 after 2 years ... Moved to a used 114270 as a replacement ... I've got to say that being paid to wear a gorgeous watch is the way to go.


And that's the resale value point ... If someone puts a SBGR053 and 114270 in front of you and says, "the GS will cost you $400 for a year and the Rolex I'll pay you $400, which one?" Even if you like the GS better, it'd probably have to be quite a bit better to get you to the GS.

The caveat is the $400 isn't precise and therefore a risk, nevertheless there's a high probability of getting between $0 and $1000 ... still makes the Rolex look great and proves why re-sale value should be a consideration for anyone interested in Rolex.

That said, I'm in the Rolex-is-boring camp so I wouldn't wear one even if you paid me $1,000.

I'd do it for $10k though.


----------



## BrianBinFL

zetaplus93 said:


> I bought and sold my SBGR053 after 2 years. Beautiful watch, but the thickness made it uncomfortable to wear. The bracelet was uncomfortable too so I had it on leather mostly. Accuracy was good (+5s/day). Lost 23% of what I paid ($2500), and I got a good deal on it. Still, it was nice while I had it, and it was fun souvenir visiting Japan.
> 
> Moved to a used 114270 as a replacement. Tremendous watch. More expensive ($4150), but also more iconic. Bracelet felt cheap (some say charming, but it felt like it was from the 80s) but the thinness of the watch made it extremely comfortable to wear, unlike the thick SBGR053. Accuracy was great (+3/day). When I sold it after a year of ownership, I made $400. So I was paid $400 to wear the watch for a year.
> 
> Now, it's subjective which one is better. I enjoyed both for what they were.
> 
> I wear what I like first and foremost. Wearability, comfort, aesthetics, etc etc.
> 
> But I've got to say that being paid to wear a gorgeous watch is the way to go.


I tried to put a little math to your post but cannot because you weren't clear about the purchase of the SBGR053. Did you buy it new or used? You said you "[l]ost 23% of what I paid ($2500)" which implies you paid $2500 for it which would mean you bought it used, but it looks like even now (which must be at least 1 year after you sold your SBGR053, if not more), used SBGR053's go for $2,600 to $2,700.

Anyway, if you can clarify if the SBGR053 was new or used when you bought it and if $2,500 was the purchase price or the sale price, it would help.


----------



## yngrshr

heineken4u said:


> You're becoming tiring already.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


As if your initial argument wasn't already tiring to begin with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zetaplus93

GrussGott said:


> And that's the resale value point ... If someone puts a SBGR053 and 114270 in front of you and says, "the GS will cost you $400 for a year and the Rolex I'll pay you $400, which one?" Even if you like the GS better, it'd probably have to be quite a bit better to get you to the GS.
> 
> The caveat is the $400 isn't precise and therefore a risk, nevertheless there's a high probability of getting between $0 and $1000 ... still makes the Rolex look great and proves why re-sale value should be a consideration for anyone interested in Rolex.
> 
> That said, I'm in the Rolex-is-boring camp so I wouldn't wear one even if you paid me $1,000.
> 
> I'd do it for $10k though.


Well, you should wear a watch that's awesome to start with. Both the SBGR053 and the 114270 were attractive to me from the beginning.

The icing on the cake is that you get paid to wear the watch, or at least likely to lose very little when you do sell it.

Agreed that if you don't like the watch to begin with, then I wouldn't wear it even if I break even or make money.


----------



## BrianBinFL

Mistimed post.


----------



## zetaplus93

BrianBinFL said:


> I tried to put a little math to your post but cannot because you weren't clear about the purchase of the SBGR053. Did you buy it new or used? You said you "[l]ost 23% of what I paid ($2500)" which implies you paid $2500 for it which would mean you bought it used, but it looks like even now (which must be at least 1 year after you sold your SBGR053, if not more), used SBGR053's go for $2,600 to $2,700.
> 
> Anyway, if you can clarify if the SBGR053 was new or used when you bought it and if $2,500 was the purchase price or the sale price, it would help.


Allow me to clarify.

The SBGR053 was brand new. I purchased it in Japan back in 2015 for the equivalent of USD2500 (inclusive of all taxes etc). I sold it in the US 2 years later (2017) for USD1900 (inclusive of all fees, shipping, etc), approximately 23% loss. (I'll add this is in line with other brands, I expect to lose about 20-30% of the value when selling a watch. Rolex and hard-to-find-micro-models are the exception)

I'll note that GS was priced much lower back then. Looks like the SGBR253 is the equivalent model today (9S65, 37mm) and MSRP is USD3800. I recall the SBGR053 was priced around USD2700-2800 (then tax on top, if any) at Arizona Fine Time. I thought I got a good price at USD2500 in Japan.

I then purchased a used 114270 for USD4150 and sold it a year later (2018) for USD4500 (inclusive of all fees shipping etc) for a gain of about USD350.


----------



## BrianBinFL

zetaplus93 said:


> Allow me to clarify.
> 
> The SBGR053 was brand new. I purchased it in Japan back in 2015 for the equivalent of USD2500 (inclusive of all taxes etc). I sold it in the US 2 years later (2017) for USD1900 (inclusive of all fees, shipping, etc), approximately 23% loss.
> 
> I'll note that GS was priced much lower back then. Looks like the SGBR253 is the equivalent model today (9S65, 37mm) and MSRP is USD3800. I recall the SBGR053 was priced around USD2700-2800 (then tax on top, if any) at Arizona Fine Time. I thought I got a good price at USD2500 in Japan.
> 
> I then purchased a used 114270 for USD4150 and sold it a year later (2018) for USD4500 (inclusive of all fees shipping etc) for a gain of about USD350.


Thanks for the reply. I'm sure you can see that comparing the loss you took on buying a *new* GS and selling it 2 years later, to the profit you made buying a *used* Rolex and selling it 1 year later, is about as apples to oranges as you can get. Kind of like comparing the loss on purchasing virtually any new car and selling it 2 years later against purchasing virtually any used car and selling it 1 year later.

It's no secret that Rolex and Patek have the best value retention in luxury watches, but your comparison doesn't even fit into that narrative. In fact, as you point out, apparently the SBGR053 has appreciated since then with used prices ultimately being right around what you paid for it new.


----------



## zetaplus93

BrianBinFL said:


> Thanks for the reply. I'm sure you can see that comparing the loss you took on buying a *new* GS and selling it 2 years later, to the profit you made buying a *used* Rolex and selling it 1 year later, is about as apples to oranges as you can get. Kind of like comparing the loss on purchasing virtually any new car and selling it 2 years later against purchasing virtually any used car and selling it 1 year later.
> 
> It's no secret that Rolex and Patek have the best value retention in luxury watches, but your comparison doesn't even fit into that narrative. In fact, as you point out, apparently the SBGR053 has appreciated since then with used prices ultimately being right around what you paid for it new.


OK. I guess the bottom line for me is that, I lose about 20-30% when I buy and sell a GS, just like any other brand (like Omega). With Rolex, there's a good chance I'll break even.

Does the 20-30% loss seem out of line to you?


----------



## BrianBinFL

zetaplus93 said:


> OK. I guess the bottom line for me is that, I lose about 20-30% when I buy and sell a GS, just like any other brand (like Omega). With Rolex, there's a good chance I'll break even.
> 
> Does the 20-30% loss seem out of line to you?


It seems that the solution is right in front of you though. You bought a used Explorer and made a little profit when you sold it a year later. If you like Grand Seikos (or Omegas or whatever), DON'T buy a new one where you guarantee you'll take the maximum possible loss. Find someone like you that bought the thing brand new a year ago, and let them eat the loss when they sell it to you at the prevailing used price. If you would have done that with the purchase of your SBGR053 you might have made even more profit than you did on your Explorer since the SBGR053 seems to have appreciated a bit for whatever reason.

But yes, if you are the type of person that grows bored of your luxury purchases, or regrets them, or you over estimated how happy they would make you, and you fully expect that in a year or two you're going to want something else, then value retention should be important to you. Buying brand new watches is a VERY poor plan with most any brand if you care about value retention.

Personally I do not make impulsive buys unless the cost of whatever I'm buying is so trivial that I can afford to lose every penny of it without giving it a second thought. If I spend several thousand dollars on a watch it would be literally shocking if I EVER grew bored of it, regretted it, or any other development arose that would cause me to sell it. Since I NEVER plan to sell any of my watches I literally could not care less what they are worth and value retention is of no importance to me whatsoever. Thus I can buy literally whatever I want without my choices being colored by factors other than if I love the watch enough to spend the money on it.


----------



## fish70

jandrese said:


> Why won't some mod kill this thread. Why do the most inane threads get the most replies? This makes us all dumber.


It appears to be working already!


----------



## zetaplus93

BrianBinFL said:


> It seems that the solution is right in front of you though. You bought a used Explorer and made a little profit when you sold it a year later. If you like Grand Seikos (or Omegas or whatever), DON'T buy a new one where you guarantee you'll take the maximum possible loss. Find someone like you that bought the thing brand new a year ago, and let them eat the loss when they sell it to you at the prevailing used price. If you would have done that with the purchase of your SBGR053 you might have made even more profit than you did on your Explorer since the SBGR053 seems to have appreciated a bit for whatever reason.
> 
> But yes, if you are the type of person that grows bored of your luxury purchases, or regrets them, or you over estimated how happy they would make you, and you fully expect that in a year or two you're going to want something else, then value retention should be important to you. Buying brand new watches is a VERY poor plan with most any brand if you care about value retention.
> 
> Personally I do not make impulsive buys unless the cost of whatever I'm buying is so trivial that I can afford to lose every penny of it without giving it a second thought. If I spend several thousand dollars on a watch it would be literally shocking if I EVER grew bored of it, regretted it, or any other development arose that would cause me to sell it. Since I NEVER plan to sell any of my watches I literally could not care less what they are worth and value retention is of no importance to me whatsoever. Thus I can buy literally whatever I want without my choices being colored by factors other than if I love the watch enough to spend the money on it.


Ah, you're coming at it from the POV that you won't sell it. Then of course what I've said is moot.

I'd reckon most folks on WUS sell watches over time though, so the 20-30% loss is something they'd have to face at some point.

If you had to sell one of your watches you bought new, surely you'd see the same loss, no?

Yes, buying used would lessen the loss, but I doubt it'd be better than 10-20% loss after factoring in all fees, shipping, etc for basically any brand/model save a few.


----------



## DustinS

zetaplus93 said:


> Allow me to clarify.
> 
> The SBGR053 was brand new. I purchased it in Japan back in 2015 for the equivalent of USD2500 (inclusive of all taxes etc). I sold it in the US 2 years later (2017) for USD1900 (inclusive of all fees, shipping, etc), approximately 23% loss. (I'll add this is in line with other brands, I expect to lose about 20-30% of the value when selling a watch. Rolex and hard-to-find-micro-models are the exception)
> 
> I'll note that GS was priced much lower back then. Looks like the SGBR253 is the equivalent model today (9S65, 37mm) and MSRP is USD3800. I recall the SBGR053 was priced around USD2700-2800 (then tax on top, if any) at Arizona Fine Time. I thought I got a good price at USD2500 in Japan.
> 
> I then purchased a used 114270 for USD4150 and sold it a year later (2018) for USD4500 (inclusive of all fees shipping etc) for a gain of about USD350.


Not really fair to compare a new and used watch in terms of value held is it?


----------



## DustinS

zetaplus93 said:


> OK. I guess the bottom line for me is that, I lose about 20-30% when I buy and sell a GS, just like any other brand (like Omega). With Rolex, there's a good chance I'll break even.
> 
> Does the 20-30% loss seem out of line to you?


20-30% loss on a used GS seems really high to me.


----------



## Hamstur

DustinS said:


> 20-30% loss on a used GS seems really high to me.


Brands made hot by pop culture like Rolex and Patek are outliers.

20% seems standard for regular models of regular brands like Omega, IWC, etc. And that is off street price too. e.g., new Omega Moonwatch or FOIS has a street price about $3600-3700. Excellent condition used runs about $3000.

Brands like GS and Nomos are niche enthusiast/fanboy brand, so up to 30% should be normal. New Nomos Worldtime retails $6100, street price new $4700-$4900, excellent used $3800-4000.


----------



## gyrotourbillon007

Hamstur said:


> Brands like GS and Nomos are niche enthusiast/fanboy brand, so up to 30% should be normal.


I agree. Both my GS are more than 25% discount brand new.


----------



## BrianBinFL

DustinS said:


> 20-30% loss on a used GS seems really high to me.


If one bought a *used* GS and later sold it at a 20-30% loss that would be high. But his loss was 23% having bought *new* and then sold 2 years later. Today the model he bought and sold now sells used for what he paid for it new. Like most things prices fluctuate. Buy high, sell low, is a bad investment strategy.


----------



## GrussGott

BrianBinFL said:


> If one bought a *used* GS and later sold it at a 20-30% loss that would be high. But his loss was 23% having bought *new* and then sold 2 years later. Today the model he bought and sold now sells used for what he paid for it new. Like most things prices fluctuate. Buy high, sell low, is a bad investment strategy.


I was curious to know what happened to used Rolex watch prices in 2008 / 2009 (and new prices for that matter) ... so let's casually nerd out a bit:

*(1.) Anecdotally, on the Rolex forums many agreed there were good deals after the Great Recession:*

















*(2.) Yet the used market cruised right through and today is both massively growing, and also consolidating*

** *Paul Altieri of BobWatches.com is "the leading online retailer of used Rolex watches" and does $50M of annual sales, growing at 35% - 40% per year, with a plan to be at $100M in sales by 2022, including getting into the new-sales market
** *Chrono24 claims €1.2 billion in yearly sales
** *Watchfinder $150 million in yearly sales,
*** Watchbox secured $200 million in VC money last year
** *Rolex themselves is ~$10B in yearly sales

*(3.) And there was no change in the overall market or multi-decade trends*

Rolex sub prices, adjusted for inflation, have continued to rise steadily forever









And they've gotten more expensive: relative to average consumer income, the sub is over 2x more expensive today than in the 70s (likely fewer people are buying more rolexes)









And the same is true with the Daytona, which increased almost double compared to the sub









And the Daytona is also more than 2x more expensive compared to the average consumer income than in the 70s (avg incomes are dropping)









I don't like Rolexes (except maybe the Daytona) and wouldn't buy one for joy, but I would buy one as cash-on-my-arm insurance, meaning even if I lost access to my other funds and had to blow town I could fly to any major city in the World and probably turn the Rolex on my arm into walking around cash until I could get at my other dough.


----------



## GrussGott

BrianBinFL said:


> I'm sure you can see that *comparing ... buying a new GS ... to ...buying a used Rolex ... is about as apples to oranges as you can get.*


The Apples / Oranges comparison is this:

* Buyers purchase Grand Seiko because, in general, they love *the watch
*
* Buyers purchase Rolex because, in general, they love *the brand*


----------



## Trel

GrussGott said:


> The Apples / Oranges comparison is this:
> 
> * Buyers purchase Grand Seiko because, in general, they love *the watch
> *
> * Buyers purchase Rolex because, in general, they love *the brand*


I don't think that's fair at all. There are plenty of great features that Rolex engineers into their watches that make them desirable on their own merits.


----------



## DustinS

Hamstur said:


> Brands made hot by pop culture like Rolex and Patek are outliers.
> 
> 20% seems standard for regular models of regular brands like Omega, IWC, etc. And that is off street price too. e.g., new Omega Moonwatch or FOIS has a street price about $3600-3700. Excellent condition used runs about $3000.
> 
> Brands like GS and Nomos are niche enthusiast/fanboy brand, so up to 30% should be normal. New Nomos Worldtime retails $6100, street price new $4700-$4900, excellent used $3800-4000.


The whole topic was however on used rolex...I assumed used vs used.


----------



## DustinS

GrussGott said:


> I was curious to know what happened to used Rolex watch prices in 2008 / 2009 (and new prices for that matter) ... so let's casually nerd out a bit:
> 
> *(1.) Anecdotally, on the Rolex forums many agreed there were good deals after the Great Recession:*
> 
> View attachment 14079933
> 
> 
> View attachment 14079951
> 
> 
> *(2.) Yet the used market cruised right through and today is both massively growing, and also consolidating*
> 
> ** *Paul Altieri of BobWatches.com is "the leading online retailer of used Rolex watches" and does $50M of annual sales, growing at 35% - 40% per year, with a plan to be at $100M in sales by 2022, including getting into the new-sales market
> ** *Chrono24 claims €1.2 billion in yearly sales
> ** *Watchfinder $150 million in yearly sales,
> *** Watchbox secured $200 million in VC money last year
> ** *Rolex themselves is ~$10B in yearly sales
> 
> *(3.) And there was no change in the overall market or multi-decade trends*
> 
> Rolex sub prices, adjusted for inflation, have continued to rise steadily forever
> 
> View attachment 14080017
> 
> 
> And they've gotten more expensive: relative to average consumer income, the sub is over 2x more expensive today than in the 70s (likely fewer people are buying more rolexes)
> 
> View attachment 14080019
> 
> 
> And the same is true with the Daytona, which increased almost double compared to the sub
> 
> View attachment 14080025
> 
> 
> And the Daytona is also more than 2x more expensive compared to the average consumer income than in the 70s (avg incomes are dropping)
> 
> View attachment 14080033
> 
> 
> I don't like Rolexes (except maybe the Daytona) and wouldn't buy one for joy, but I would buy one as cash-on-my-arm insurance, meaning even if I lost access to my other funds and had to blow town I could fly to any major city in the World and probably turn the Rolex on my arm into walking around cash until I could get at my other dough.


This is very misleading.









The rolex sky rocketing prices against inflation is relatively new and very much looks like a bubble.


----------



## RPF

Back to grand seiko please. 

Leave the rolexing to the Rolex forum please. 

Prices cannot increase in perpetuity. Not when the copies are being made for a decade with glacial improvements between generations. Let's hope Africa become rich enough to sustain the next cycle or its adios. 

Most of the Rolex analysis is deficient because they are American frames of reference. The primary driver of Rolex prices is Asian today but no rich white dude even talks about it.


----------



## GrussGott

Trel said:


> I don't think that's fair at all. There are plenty of great features that Rolex engineers into their watches that make them desirable on their own merits.


and you can buy all those same features - and many better! - in other watches (Grand Seiko) for cheaper prices, yet people still buy Rolex. Why? Because it says "rolex" on it.

Grand Seiko is REALLY trying, but they're going to have to do better than their Basel shiit-flake watches (not a good look)


----------



## ljb187




----------



## BigSeikoFan

ljb187 said:


> View attachment 14081621


Looks like an Alex Ross...


----------



## Sakaro

I also think that Grand Seiko need to improve their brand recognition if they want to continue increasing their prices. I like Grand Seiko, but their current marketing is only directed at the watch community, so signaling only works within that community. Everything we wear is also a means of communication and GS does not communicate to the general public. This can be very nice for people that enjoy watches and do not want to attract attention outside the watch community, but it's hard to justify to pay another premium for this kind of signaling beyond the already high prices for premium quality. Rolex is a whole different ball game. They spend a lot of money on marketing and their marketing actually increases the signaling capabilities of their watches to the general public. Not everyone likes that kind of signaling, but it's very hard to achieve, so Rolex actually provides value to their customers beyond the quality and resale value of their watches. Grand Seiko does not! If I buy a GS and go home to my family, nobody notices the watch. If I wear a Rolex, my grandparents will know I'm doing fine. 

I often feel that this kind of value is often ignored in forums like this. If friends ask me what watch to give as a present to someone who is not into watches, I usually recommend Gucci watches and not Seikos, because they actually offer real bang for the buck when it comes to signaling. I know that watch people look down on brands like Gucci, but nowhere in the watch world do you get signaling to the general public similar to a Rolex for under 1000 USD, sometimes even under 500 USD. Giving an average middle class mother a Gucci watch with classic styling works every time, because the next day she can show it to her co-workers and say "look what my daughter gave me for my birthday, it's a Gucci!". Try that with a GS for 10x the price. It won't work! And if we define quality as how easily an item breaks, Gucci watches also don't lose out, they won't break any more easily than a watch community luxury watch.


----------



## Sakaro

Originally double post, so I will add something here: 

Regarding the middle class: I actually don't think that the middle class cannot afford luxury items anymore. Purchases of luxury items are on the rise and the middle class is buying them, too. What really squeezes the middle class is the inflation in asset prices, which includes housing in cities. More and more jobs migrate to the cities, but it is impossible to rent, let alone buy a nice apartment in any of the world's major cities within a distance to work that makes a reasonable commute possible. Wages have not increased by much, but where it was possible to save your money and buy a nice place close to work 30 years ago, if you only controlled your spending habits and gave up on your dream watches, it now doesn't make any difference. Even if they do not buy a GS or a Rolex, the average middle class income earner won't be able to get financing for a Million+ dollar apartment, so it actually won't make a difference whether they buy the Rolex or not, because the classic middle class lifestyle is so far out of reach now that a Grand Seiko almost looks cheap.


----------



## BrianBinFL

Sakaro said:


> I also think that Grand Seiko need to improve their brand recognition if they want to continue increasing their prices.


But can they? As long as the word "Seiko" is in the name I think that in places like the U.S. they will get nowhere. Even among "watch people" there are those that will say "no Seiko, Grand or otherwise, is worth (insert price here)".

A non-watch person is most likely not capable of appreciating the qualities that make a Grand Seiko special, much like many (most?) are not capable of realizing that a stainless Submariner isn't actually as special as its price would seem to imply.

Though Grand Seiko may wish otherwise, I don't know that they can ever really be anything other than a boutique brand for "watch people". And in certain circumstances there is something very useful about having a "luxury watch" that nobody will recognize as a luxury watch. There are circumstances when the cachet that Rolex brings "overshoots the mark" and can have a negative effect. When contemplating how my watch will be received by others I find that the number of occasions where I deliberately wear the Submariner for the beneficial signalling that it offers, is less than the number of occasions where I specifically decide against the Submariner and go for the GS or some other "under the radar" watch.

For example, when meeting with a new prospective client, if they are a wealthy client such as a large law firm, they will likely react favorably to a Rolex on your wrist. It tells them they are dealing with someone successful who has the resources to do the job they want done. But if the client you're meeting with is a small manufacturing firm, they may be more likely to think "these guys are going to be too expensive for us", or worse.

I read a post either here or on FB where the poster had a Rolex they inherited from their father that they wore on a sales call visiting a longstanding customer. Later the customer angrily called the company and said they wouldn't be ordering from them anymore. Now that's a little closed minded and extreme, but it seems they saw the watch and felt like the salesman was getting rich off their business and must be charging them too much. People are funny creatures, especially as you cross socio-economic strata, and the cachet that Rolex brings can cut both ways.


----------



## GMT-man

Sakaro said:


> I also think that Grand Seiko need to improve their brand recognition if they want to continue increasing their prices. I like Grand Seiko, but their current marketing is only directed at the watch community, so signaling only works within that community. Everything we wear is also a means of communication and GS does not communicate to the general public. This can be very nice for people that enjoy watches and do not want to attract attention outside the watch community, but it's hard to justify to pay another premium for this kind of signaling beyond the already high prices for premium quality. Rolex is a whole different ball game. They spend a lot of money on marketing and their marketing actually increases the signaling capabilities of their watches to the general public. Not everyone likes that kind of signaling, but it's very hard to achieve, so Rolex actually provides value to their customers beyond the quality and resale value of their watches. Grand Seiko does not! If I buy a GS and go home to my family, nobody notices the watch. If I wear a Rolex, my grandparents will know I'm doing fine.
> 
> I often feel that this kind of value is often ignored in forums like this. If friends ask me what watch to give as a present to someone who is not into watches, I usually recommend Gucci watches and not Seikos, because they actually offer real bang for the buck when it comes to signaling. I know that watch people look down on brands like Gucci, but nowhere in the watch world do you get signaling to the general public similar to a Rolex for under 1000 USD, sometimes even under 500 USD. Giving an average middle class mother a Gucci watch with classic styling works every time, because the next day she can show it to her co-workers and say "look what my daughter gave me for my birthday, it's a Gucci!". Try that with a GS for 10x the price. It won't work! And if we define quality as how easily an item breaks, Gucci watches also don't lose out, they won't break any more easily than a watch community luxury watch.


I do not like to quote such lengthy posts in full, but in this case I could not decide where to edit.

Anyway: this really shows that there a LOT of people for whom "signaling" is more important than the actual mechanical/historical/artisan values of the chosen timepiece. Rolex is a "signaling" brand first and foremost. They make about one million watches per year. Grand Seiko makes about 50000 watches per year, and they are one of the most "non-signaling" brands there is. Maybe the numbers tell something about the purposes of buying these brands also.

"_I often feel that this kind of value is often ignored in forums like this._" Have you ever checked the Rolex forum here?

I have 3 watches which could be classified as "luxury", two GS and one Tudor. One person in 2 years have noticed my first GS, nobody my second GS or Tudor. Do I want to signal something with them? If yes, it definitely is not working... I was on the verge of buying a Rolex Explorer II, but decided at the last moment that I do not want to "signal" anything Rolex tends to signal, even though they are perfectly fine watches.


----------



## Sakaro

I totally get what you are saying. I am personally also more comfortable with an under the radar watch for the reasons you mentioned. Having said that, I still think that boutique brands like GS will price themselves out of the market if they continue to increase the price. If one wants under the radar luxury watches beyond 10000 USD there are definitely more appealing options than a "standard" GS in precious metal, even though the SBGZ001 looks stunning.


----------



## Sakaro

GMT-man said:


> Have you ever checked the Rolex forum here?


Usually people will try to base their opinion on resale value, they hardly ever say: "I want to look rich." But the latter is what Rolex actually provides. Rolex is as much a fashion watch brand as Gucci or Fendi. There is no artistry in the design of new Rolex watches anymore, no special craftsmanship, either. But most Rolex owners don't want to admit that. Even Invicta is a well of creativity compared to Rolex.


----------



## GMT-man

Sakaro said:


> GS will price themselves out of the market if they continue to increase the price.


GS have announced many five figure new models, but I have not noticed them pulling out the $3000-7000 basic SS models or raising their prices. If R**** announces a new rainbow XYZ covered in diamonds nobody is crying them increasing the prices. There is just more models to choose from, with wider range of prices. We plebeians can keep buying the cheaper ones, so what does it matter?


----------



## rdoder

One thought is, maybe GS know it's impossible to go up against Rolex as status symbol directly, so they cater more to the crowd that likes "under-the-radar"?

There is signaling or recognition with GS, as mentioned, just with the watch enthusiast crowd? The perception is then, "This is a watch guy" (only among watch guys), rather than, "This guy wants me to know he's rich".

I agree, there are still plenty of "affordable" GS's. I'm sure GS prices as a whole will keep up with inflation at least, but maybe any price increases will not be as large as Rolex?

GS's current tagline is, "*Grand Seiko offers timepieces of distinction for all.*" It's almost like a mission statement. GS is luxury/Veblen pricing, but at least image-wise, they want the image to be, "for all", for everyone. Maybe their pricing will somewhat remain "for all" as well, i.e. on the affordable side of luxury? Whereas Rolex's unspoken but clearly understood tagline is, "Rolex is status symbol for the rich", and they have price increases to reinforce that image.


----------



## zetaplus93

Sakaro said:


> Usually people will try to base their opinion on resale value, they hardly ever say: "I want to look rich." But the latter is what Rolex actually provides. Rolex is as much a fashion watch brand as Gucci or Fendi. There is no artistry in the design of new Rolex watches anymore, no special craftsmanship, either. But most Rolex owners don't want to admit that. Even Invicta is a well of creativity compared to Rolex.


I tend to think of Rolex being the opposite of a fashion watch, which change their styles often to provide new designs.

Rolex basically does a handful of designs (Sub, Daytona, Datejust, OP, Cellini) and updates them aesthetically about once every 1-2 decades. They're not creative like, say, Omega. Whether that's good or bad depends on one's view. They've definitely dug into the heritage angle.

I'd say GS is more creative than Rolex with their designs, to a certain extent. Again, whether that's good or bad depends on whether you like the styles they come out with.


----------



## zetaplus93

Sakaro said:


> I also think that Grand Seiko need to improve their brand recognition if they want to continue increasing their prices. I like Grand Seiko, but their current marketing is only directed at the watch community, so signaling only works within that community.





BrianBinFL said:


> Though Grand Seiko may wish otherwise, I don't know that they can ever really be anything other than a boutique brand for "watch people".


But is this a bad thing?

In some sense, GS has found a great niche to be in-selling to watch people. We are the group who're crazy enough to spend hundreds or thousands more on minute changes.

So if this is their strategy, no need to spend millions on marketing. Instead, focus on core features of the product (movement, case, material, design, etc) and it'll make a difference with this crowd.

My guess is that GS will push pricing until it matches Omega or other brands in that price range. No need to try to match Rolex... yet.


----------



## yngrshr

GMT-man said:


> GS have announced many five figure new models, but I have not noticed them pulling out the $3000-7000 basic SS models or raising their prices. If R**** announces a new rainbow XYZ covered in diamonds nobody is crying them increasing the prices. There is just more models to choose from, with wider range of prices. We plebeians can keep buying the cheaper ones, so what does it matter?


Agreed. I don't see the typical models with any increased prices as of yet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianBinFL

zetaplus93 said:


> But is this a bad thing?


Nope, not a bad thing at all. But if their goal is to "be like Rolex" I don't think it would be a realistic aspiration. Personally I'd rather GS remain boutique than try to be something else and cease to be the watch that we love.



zetaplus93 said:


> In some sense, GS has found a great niche to be in-selling to watch people. We are the group who're crazy enough to spend hundreds or thousands more on minute changes.
> 
> So if this is their strategy, no need to spend millions on marketing. Instead, focus on core features of the product (movement, case, material, design, etc) and it'll make a difference with this crowd.


Absolutely.



zetaplus93 said:


> My guess is that GS will push pricing until it matches Omega or other brands in that price range. No need to try to match Rolex... yet.


Honestly I don't mind if they raise prices. For me that's not the point. The point is that they continue being all the things you said above. If Grand Seiko ever starts punching out mass produced watches and selling them at luxury prices (like Omega and Rolex), then I'd be done with them. If I'm going to buy a mass produced watch at a luxury price then it might as well be something with cachet.


----------



## Sakaro

zetaplus93 said:


> I tend to think of Rolex being the opposite of a fashion watch, which change their styles often to provide new designs.
> 
> Rolex basically does a handful of designs (Sub, Daytona, Datejust, OP, Cellini) and updates them aesthetically about once every 1-2 decades. They're not creative like, say, Omega. Whether that's good or bad depends on one's view. They've definitely dug into the heritage angle.
> 
> I'd say GS is more creative than Rolex with their designs, to a certain extent. Again, whether that's good or bad depends on whether you like the styles they come out with.


If Rolex was the opposite of a fashion watch brand, their designs would make sense. If we have a look at the current releases it becomes pretty obvious that they are a fashion watch company:

Who would need a two-tone Sea-Dweller? This watch does not serve any purpose, other than safely refreshing the line to cater to fashion conscious people. It's not even creative, hard to produce or brings additional benefits beyond signaling. It looks almost desperate. If Rolex was not a fashion watch brand, they would ask themselves the question what divers actually need, or how to elevate their designs, but they do not ask themselves that question. The question they ask is how people will spend more money with them to be perceived as rich and fashion conscious.

Grand Seiko in comparison tries to offer the best quality possible in order to attract customers, be it technology or design. Let's take take the * SBGZ001 , *with its platinum snowflake case. Does it serve any other purpose than to look pretty? Well, for GS the main purpose is to set a new anchor price to improve brand perception, but besides that, it actually offers a creative design and high degree of craftsmanship. Having the beloved snowflake dial continue throughout the case is ingenious. It will not influence fashion watches, but if you buy that watch, you will get the most unique and most exquisite Snowflake out there. Period!


----------



## RPF

Davido22 said:


> Historically, GS has been an incredible value proposition and an opportunity to own more than a three hander, e.g. GMT. This year's Baselworld proves that Seiko is no longer interested in many people's business with the incredible northward pricing. Personally I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers. The watches are too thick and in my gut I just feel like that is their problem and they need to make up for this fault, just as they need to improve their bracelet clasps because there is room for improvement, not as a means of jacking prices. Introducing high end movements into other lines, Presage and Prospex, just confuses the separation that GS has taken recently. I find myself looking at Rolex in ways I never dreamed of, I don't want to pay over $7K for a watch that immediately loses significant value when it touches my wrist, not at this level of investment. I was lucky enough to start buying King Seikos the past few years and enjoy the hunt and capture of nice models.


A Monta with a bang-ordinary Sellita is $2k. No COSC, no accuracy guarantees, no cachet. Just a pretty good clasp and a nice bracelet. The finishing and dial work cannot touch the GS, although the design language is admittedly modern and trendy.

That's today's watch market for you.


----------



## zetaplus93

Sakaro said:


> If Rolex was the opposite of a fashion watch brand, their designs would make sense. If we have a look at the current releases it becomes pretty obvious that they are a fashion watch company:
> 
> Who would need a two-tone Sea-Dweller? This watch does not serve any purpose, other than safely refreshing the line to cater to fashion conscious people. It's not even creative, hard to produce or brings additional benefits beyond signaling. It looks almost desperate. If Rolex was not a fashion watch brand, they would ask themselves the question what divers actually need, or how to elevate their designs, but they do not ask themselves that question. The question they ask is how people will spend more money with them to be perceived as rich and fashion conscious.


I think we're speaking about different aspects of fashion watches. Certainly I agree that the TTSD doesn't serve any purpose for the tradition toolwatch aside from making it more bling. On the other hand, fashion watches tend to change design quickly, and Rolex changes designs every decade or two, so in that aspect it's quite different from standard fashion brands.

As for who wants a TTSD? My guess is for folks who want a bigger TT Sub. It's most likely not going to used for diving--the closest to water for most of its owners is the pool. Then again, this is true for most dive watches out there, from Seiko's to GS to Oris to Halios to ...



Sakaro said:


> Grand Seiko in comparison tries to offer the best quality possible in order to attract customers, be it technology or design.


I think you can replace "Grand Seiko" with any brand in the above sentence and it'd be true. The question is what one means by "quality", "technology", or "design".


----------



## Sakaro

Definitely not. That's the ideal, but for most brands consumer price point comes first and then the product is designed accordingly. If you ask for the best quality possible, most honest entrepreneurs would say that offering the best quality possible is not economically viable, but GS at least gives their consumers the feeling that they try.


----------



## zetaplus93

Sakaro said:


> Definitely not. That's the ideal, but for most brands consumer price point comes first and then the product is designed accordingly. If you ask for the best quality possible, most honest entrepreneurs would say that offering the best quality possible is not economically viable, but GS at least gives their consumers the feeling that they try.


Sorry, what I meant to say was that: Top-tier brands tries to offer the best quality possible in order to attract customers, be it technology or design.

These would be Rolex, Omega, GS, Patek, AP, Cartier, etc etc. They wouldn't be top-tier if they weren't able to offer the best quality product to their customers, at the price bracket they choose to compete in.

And by quality, this can be perceivable qualities (the watch itself) as well as imperceivable qualities (brand, after-sales service, etc).

These companies are usually sane and their prior success speaks for itself. They've been around for decades, so they most likely know what they're doing, otherwise they've gone down long ago. And there's no shortage of competitors trying to take away their business.

One may not like the decisions/tradeoffs these brands make (e.g. spend less on brand ambassadors and more on the actual watch!), but there's plenty of other brands to choose from if one doesn't suit your taste.

As for GS increasing their prices, they're certainly trying to move upmarket. They look to be doing alright so far. My guess is that some of their core customers think it's no longer the relative bargain it once was, and some percentage will turn away (myself included). But if the new direction attracts new, higher paying customers (buyers who perhaps think higher prices signal better quality) as a result, then the strategy is successful and they'd continue.


----------



## GrussGott

zetaplus93 said:


> As for GS increasing their prices, they're certainly trying to move upmarket. They look to be doing alright so far. My guess is that some of their core customers think it's no longer the relative bargain it once was, and some percentage will turn away (myself included). But if the new direction attracts new, higher paying customers (buyers who perhaps think higher prices signal better quality) as a result, then the strategy is successful and they'd continue.


60% of this show (which is mostly a podcast) is more / less about Grand Seiko, their price increase, their strategy, etc - they weave around to other topics but keep coming back to GS and the price increases


----------



## Davido22

OP here. I had no idea tnis would push so many buttons. I own twenty Seiko/Credors. My real complaint is why should I pay such a gross premium just because GS finally makes a watch that fits under a cuff?


----------



## BrianBinFL

Davido22 said:


> I own twenty Seiko/Credors. My real complaint is *why should I pay such a gross premium just because GS finally makes a watch that fits under a cuff?*


Because you want it and that's what it costs. 

Heck, maybe Seiko makes GS watches thick on purpose, charging even higher prices for thinner Credors for those who strongly desire that feature.

In market based economies almost never is something priced at a certain level just because someone arbitrarily decided it. It's generally our good friends supply and demand getting together to determine an equilibrium price.


----------



## RPF

Davido22 said:


> OP here. I had no idea tnis would push so many buttons. I own twenty Seiko/Credors. My real complaint is why should I pay such a gross premium just because GS finally makes a watch that fits under a cuff?


Compare apples to apples. You are not paying Rolex money for a regular model and comparable gs. Otherwise gs will not sell.

If you want something more special and exclusive it will cost more coin but there are plenty of gs today that go for under 5k which is below the oyster perp, the most starter of rolexes.

Rolex makes plenty of 20k, even 50k PM watches which are really nothing but recases which substitute a few dollars in ss with several hundred in gold or platine. Same movement and functions.


----------



## Sakaro

Davido22 said:


> OP here. I had no idea tnis would push so many buttons. I own twenty Seiko/Credors. My real complaint is why should I pay such a gross premium just because GS finally makes a watch that fits under a cuff?


You are not paying a premium for the thinner movement. The price increases are part of a broader strategy. It is very difficult to raise the prices for older models that have not yet been refreshed, but Grand Seiko is trying. I went to my local GS boutique today and there have been major changes. The boutique used to be run by a third party, but GS took over this week. Their first move: No more discounts! So the price of old models increased by 20-30% overnight. So I went to another store of the company that used to run the boutique and met staff who had worked at the boutique before. They still offer standard and boutique GS models with a discount, but their current contract with GS ends this year. They will still receive the new dressier limited edition Spring Drive models, but they are not sure yet whether they will also receive the 2020 collection in full. So no, you are not paying a premium for slimmer models, you are paying a premium for increased brand awareness among watch enthusiasts.


----------



## bluedialer

Sakaro said:


> You are not paying a premium for the thinner movement. The price increases are part of a broader strategy. It is very difficult to raise the prices for older models that have not yet been refreshed, but Grand Seiko is trying. I went to my local GS boutique today and there have been major changes. The boutique used to be run by a third party, but GS took over this week. Their first move: No more discounts! So the price of old models increased by 20-30% overnight. So I went to another store of the company that used to run the boutique and met staff who had worked at the boutique before. They still offer standard and boutique GS models with a discount, but their current contract with GS ends this year. They will still receive the new dressier limited edition Spring Drive models, but they are not sure yet whether they will also receive the 2020 collection in full. So no, you are not paying a premium for slimmer models, you are paying a premium for increased brand awareness among watch enthusiasts.


Even worse. Glad I love the ones I have, in case I never find another that's worth whatever branding-inflated price it comes out with.


----------



## pkincy

I can admit that the future value of a luxury purchase like a fine watch can factor into a purchase decision. However I think it is very important to understand what is its priority in your decision. If it is a very important point that you consider heavily, I think you are spending money on luxury items you cannot afford. In fact in any purchase of a "luxury" item I think it is important to understand that the money paid should be mad money that means nothing to you at all. The item you are buying should give you some long term enjoyment or joy. If not, you may have a problem. Luxury items are generally very poor investments over a full market cycle.

In the recent past I have picked up 3 watches BNIB from separate ADs. Two were from Rolex ADs and are nice watches and I wanted them and planned their purchase over a reasonable period of time and analysis. One was an impulse purchase of a GS GMT watch that cost less than either of the Rolex watches by a fair amount, yet that is the watch I find on my wrist most days. I will not sell either of the more expensive watches and I will wear them or possible pass them to a family member but the one that gives me the most joy is the GS and it is the one with the lowest acquisition cost, so in my thinking it clearly has the "highest value propostion." With my enjoyment being the only measure to me of "value."


----------



## Barbababa

Yes they have!


----------



## Chingoo

Meantime we are in the fifth month of the year, no affordable release as of yet.

Makes me wonder, when was the last affordable release (up to 4K) of an automatic or springdrive? Baselworld 2017 with the SBGR311? 2018 the cheapest was the SBGA375 at 5K?

I think it's safe to say there will be no affordable releases coming this year, if that was barely the case last year and the year before


----------



## DustinS

Chingoo said:


> Meantime we are in the fifth month of the year, no affordable release as of yet.
> 
> Makes me wonder, when was the last affordable release (up to 4K) of an automatic or springdrive? Baselworld 2017 with the SBGR311? 2018 the cheapest was the SBGA375 at 5K?
> 
> I think it's safe to say there will be no affordable releases coming this year, if that was barely the case last year and the year before


Sub 4k auto/spring drive was never common. Those generally are the less popular 37's and use the 3 link bracelet (which I do like).


----------



## jssans1

I want to buy the SBGA403. That must make me insane.

When I look at watches I pick the ones that I consider awesome. I never look at the price while browsing. I only consider not buying a watch if it's financial out of my comfort zone. Never looking at the price of things & you'll find your true taste in all things.








Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## DustinS

Davido22 said:


> OP here. I had no idea tnis would push so many buttons. I own twenty Seiko/Credors. My real complaint is why should I pay such a gross premium just because GS finally makes a watch that fits under a cuff?


Historically, we've always had to pay for miniaturization. Why not with watches?


----------



## Chingoo

DustinS said:


> Chingoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meantime we are in the fifth month of the year, no affordable release as of yet.
> 
> Makes me wonder, when was the last affordable release (up to 4K) of an automatic or springdrive? Baselworld 2017 with the SBGR311? 2018 the cheapest was the SBGA375 at 5K?
> 
> I think it's safe to say there will be no affordable releases coming this year, if that was barely the case last year and the year before
> 
> 
> 
> Sub 4k auto/spring drive was never common. Those generally are the less popular 37's and use the 3 link bracelet (which I do like).
Click to expand...

There were dozens of automatic pieces on that price point when Seiko was still present on the dial. Also 40mm.


----------



## DustinS

Chingoo said:


> There were dozens of automatic pieces on that price point when Seiko was still present on the dial. Also 40mm.


Dozens is a bit much. And was my description wrong? Mostly 37 and 3 link bracelets?

They still have 4 such models so it isn't like they were abandoned.


----------



## mleok

Davido22 said:


> Historically, GS has been an incredible value proposition and an opportunity to own more than a three hander, e.g. GMT. This year's Baselworld proves that Seiko is no longer interested in many people's business with the incredible northward pricing. Personally I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers. The watches are too thick and in my gut I just feel like that is their problem and they need to make up for this fault, just as they need to improve their bracelet clasps because there is room for improvement, not as a means of jacking prices. Introducing high end movements into other lines, Presage and Prospex, just confuses the separation that GS has taken recently. I find myself looking at Rolex in ways I never dreamed of, I don't want to pay over $7K for a watch that immediately loses significant value when it touches my wrist, not at this level of investment. I was lucky enough to start buying King Seikos the past few years and enjoy the hunt and capture of nice models.


I tend to prefer dressy watches, and the thickness of the Grand a Seiko movements coupled with the width of the lugs on many of their everyday watches mean that only a small fraction of their collection appeal to me. The current SBGW231 feels very thick, particularly given its smaller case diameter.

I was contemplating a SBGW253 at some point, but when I tried it on at the Madrid boutique, I wasn't all that impressed with the all polished case and the lack of a display caseback. But, the $5700 MSRP on the SBGW253 looks like an absolute bargain compared to the $7800 for the new limited edition manual wind Spring Drive in stainless steel.

At this point, I'm contemplating either a quartz Grand Seiko or a Citizen Chronomaster with the Washi paper dial.


----------



## mleok

Chingoo said:


> Surely agree, but would make sense if we can understand price difference between models? LX,GS, presage, all of it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> When you see a new model, you in general should be able to estimate the price range right? With Seiko and Grand Seiko you literally never know what the price would be. It's completely random.
> 
> I think even ablogtowatch called it the GS random price "greed" calculator.
> 
> Why should we accept everything blindly as a consumer. We should also think critically using our brain, not only our wallet.


I like the "random price greed generator" comment, it is so true. There is no rhyme or reason to their pricing.

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/grand-seiko-elegance-collection/


----------



## mleok

jandrese said:


> Buy whatever your want a whatever price you find acceptable. FWIW the "new" GS is the Citizen Chronomaster and 0100 mov't watches. GS or better quality for much less money.


I saw a Chronomaster with a grey dial at the Citizen Company Store in the Desert Hills Premium Outlets, and it was a very nice watch. They were asking about $2K out the door, inclusive of tax, and with a full manufacture's warranty.


----------



## mleok

aalin13 said:


> Like my last post, I don't get why this talk of value retention and price increases are targeted at GS. This applies to basically every watch brand outside of Rolex and Patek. Omega is probably the closest competitor to Rolex, and look at the second hand prices on f29, definitely well below MSRP.
> 
> Why is GS being singled out for wanting to keep up with the ever increasing prices of the market as a whole? And why is GS being singled out for poor value retention, when Rolex is really more an anomaly than the norm?


I think you make a very fair point, except for certain desirable models from Rolex and Patek, most watches depreciate quite substantially.


----------



## mleok

blowlamp said:


> GS bracelets and clasps are better made than Rolex - they just don't have a spring-pin micro adjust feature or the half-link thing.


They might be better finished, but they have substantial amounts of lateral play. Okay, you'll probably say that's a design decision intended to improve comfort, but that's the same excuse Rolex owners used to justify the horrid previous generation hollow midlink bracelets.


----------



## mleok

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Couldn't agree more. Value retention is not the norm. Take a look around the sales forum if you need any proof.
> But GS always seems to be held to a different standard. The "greed" comment from earlier and "I don't believe Seiko needs to put the full share of their progress on the backs of consumers" demonstrates what is odd when it comes to the Seiko and GS conversation (or the fact the middle class is being referenced in the thread title, albeit in a way that was never clearly explained) They make watches for a profit, just like everyone else, but there seems to be this idea that they owe something to the average Joe and that they are being traitorous and greedy by moving upmarket, yet these types of comments rarely, if ever, surface in discussions about other brands. If that is your concern, take on the watch industry as a whole (also, ss models are still far below anything Rolex is offering, but everyone apparently enjoys ignoring this and going straight to their pm models amd other LE's.).


It's a bit like when your favorite indie band sells out and goes mainstream, leaving their fans behind. Seiko has historically traded on their value proposition, and increasingly that advantage is vanishing.


----------



## mleok

DustinS said:


> Why do you care about value? Do you buy your panties and expect a resale? Your tampons? Do you think your bra will be worth as much as you paid? So why your watch? Your car will drop in value and if you drive it for fun it will drop MORE. So I ask seriously if you want a watch that you'll wear and beat to hell (because why get a watch you don't beat to hell), why does the sale value matter? If it turns out it has a good resale value (which most GS do) that's bonus points. But again do your buy paper towls and think you can get your money back?


There's something deeply misogynistic about your post.


----------



## DustinS

mleok said:


> There's something deeply misogynistic about your post.


Was angling more for humor....but I can see that interpretation.


----------



## ahonobaka

Purely anecdotal, but I hear from a few AD's that GS is now their top seller, or among top 3, so they're doing _something_ right.

I get that people may have sticker shock by the new models' pricing (existing models have not changed), but I suspect you just need to have them in hand, and have GS or the AD explain the cost jump on those new models (new sapphire, harder cases to apply zaratsu technique, etc.). That, GS could certainly do better so people aren't left with the money grab impression, since people aren't likely to do the homework.


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> and you can buy all those same features - and many better! - in other watches (Grand Seiko) for cheaper prices, yet people still buy Rolex. Why? Because it says "rolex" on it.
> 
> Grand Seiko is REALLY trying, but they're going to have to do better than their Basel shiit-flake watches (not a good look)
> 
> View attachment 14081549


I don't think that's a fair statement either, Grand Seiko may be better in terms of finishing, but their movement accuracy, precision of fit, and general wearability fall short of Rolex.


----------



## mleok

DustinS said:


> Was angling more for humor....but I can see that interpretation.


Then you would have used condoms, adult diapers, and boxers in your example.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> I don't think that's a fair statement either, Grand Seiko may be better in terms of finishing, but their movement accuracy, precision of fit, and general wearability fall short of Rolex.


Depending on which part of this post we discuss, it is either subjective or wrong depending. The Spring Drive movements are more accurate than anything Rolex is putting out, so that right there is a factually incorrect statement. The standard automatics and hi-beats almost invariably outperform their publicized specs, from my experience.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> Depending on which part of this post we discuss, it is either subjective or wrong depending. The Spring Drive movements are more accurate than anything Rolex is putting out, so that right there is a factually incorrect statement. The standard automatics and hi-beats almost invariably outperform their publicized specs, from my experience.


Most mechanical watches outperform their publicized specs, that's almost a given just based on a normal distribution of accuracy, and a desire to keep the amount of warranty work to correct out of spec movements low.

As for Spring Drive, I am not impressed that a quartz regulated movement outperforms a mechanical movement.


----------



## ahonobaka

Easy to concede that Rolex beats GS on fit, and lets not forget, post sales support/servicing! They have a ways to go on either front, but I think they're headed that way out of necessity.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> As for Spring Drive, I am not impressed that a quartz regulated movement outperforms a mechanical movement.


Interesting moving of the goalposts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GrussGott

yngrshr said:


> Depending on which part of this post we discuss, it is either subjective or wrong depending. The Spring Drive movements are more accurate than anything Rolex is putting out, so that right there is a factually incorrect statement. The standard automatics and hi-beats almost invariably outperform their publicized specs, from my experience.


Exactly this.

Let's not insult ourselves by pretending Rolex is the utilitarian or value choice - we all want them (and have gotten them) because there's a THRILL that comes with wearing the 5 pointed crown ... a Rolex is really one of the few material things that can do that. A porsche or ferrari, a big NYC/SF apartment with a great view, flying private, black car service, etc.

The topic here would be, is Grand Seiko raising their prices in an attempt to be a 2nd Rolex? I think, yes, they're trying for that. I think their CEO truly believes "Seiko" is a luxury brand (not GS, but Seiko - look at the Prospex LX).

And the next question is, can the market make room for another Rolex? Yes, absolutely, it's growing because a lot more people globally are buying a lot more luxury products.

So is Grand Seiko raising their prices to capture this market? Yahhup.

Will they? Ehhhhhhh....


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> Interesting moving of the goalposts.


Not moving the goal posts, nobody expects a mechanical watch to be more accurate than a quartz watch. You might as well have made the comparison to a 9F Grand Seiko, which has the Spring Drive beat as well, except that Citizen has that beat with the new 0100 calibre.

When I was at the Watchtime Los Angeles event, the Grand Seiko sales staff at least had the honesty to refer to the Spring Drive as a mainspring powered, quartz regulated movement. There's no shame in that, because it's the truth.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> Not moving the goal posts, nobody expects a mechanical watch to be more accurate than a quartz watch. You might as well have made the comparison to a 9F Grand Seiko, which has the Spring Drive beat as well, except that Citizen has that beat with the new 0100 calibre.


Then perhaps you shouldn't issue blanket statements when responding to a post with pictures of three Spring Drive movement watches. You literally issued a blanket statement that said Grand Seiko's "movement accuracy" falls short. Which is verifiably false.

It's almost like you said something silly and tried to shift the goalposts after the fact. Sort of exactly how I put it.


----------



## DustinS

mleok said:


> Then you would have used condoms, adult diapers, and boxers in your example.


Then I'd be ageist. There humor is in that the posts likely does not use said products but the joke missed. no worries.


----------



## ahonobaka

GS can never be Rolex; I don't think that's their intention because they certainly don't have the manpower to do so (~40k watches per year vs. nearly 1 million per year). Eat into that market? Yes, very possible, and they're already well on their way. Let's see where market share lies end of year, at least in American sales; I wouldn't be surprised if they're top 5


----------



## pkincy

In the past 6 weeks I have gotten 4 new watches. 2 Rolex and 2 GS. My favorites for wrist time are clearly the GS. I am not into the large tool watch thing although one of my Rolex watches is an Explorer. Is the plural of Rolex, Rolexes?


----------



## GrussGott

mleok said:


> When I was at the Watchtime Los Angeles event, the Grand Seiko sales staff at least had the honesty to refer to the Spring Drive as a mainspring powered, quartz regulated movement. There's no shame in that, because it's the truth.


 Maybe I'm missing something, but is there anybody who knows what they're talking about that's ever said spring drive is anything other than what it is? Or had "shame" about it?

Spring Drive is one of the greatest innovations in timepiece movements in at least a generation - if there's shame it should lie with Rolex - the only thing they've been able to do in a decade with the sub is two-tone. (skydweller is cool though)

Point is, Rolex sells its brand, it doesn't need to worry about accuracy or innovation, GS has to offer something more


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> Then perhaps you shouldn't issue blanket statements when responding to a post with pictures of three Spring Drive movement watches. You literally issued a blanket statement that said Grand Seiko's "movement accuracy" falls short. Which is verifiably false.
> 
> It's almost like you said something silly and tried to shift the goalposts after the fact. Sort of exactly how I put it.


Touché, I didn't notice the Spring Drive watches in that post.

If it makes you feel better, mechanical Grand Seikos have poorer accuracy specifications than Rolexes. Even the hi-beat VFA (Very Finely Adjusted) has a +3/-1 spd (when static) rating, but a real world accuracy rating of +8/-1 spd, which just seems like serious backpeddling on an accuracy claim.


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but is there anybody who knows what they're talking about that's ever said spring drive is anything other than what it is? Or had "shame" about it?
> 
> Spring Drive is one of the greatest innovations in timepiece movements in at least a generation - if there's shame it should lie with Rolex - the only thing they've been able to do in a decade with the sub is two-tone. (skydweller is cool though)
> 
> Point is, Rolex sells its brand, it doesn't need to worry about accuracy or innovation, GS has to offer something more


Why is it the greatest innovation in timepiece movements? It isn't any more accurate, requires more frequent servicing than a quartz movement, doesn't survive an EMP like a mechanical, its accuracy does not rely on exacting tolerances or careful manual adjustment, has a low power reserve relative to a quartz watch, but wait, it has this pretty sweeping seconds hand... It's a gimmick, plain and simple. I like it as a Rube Goldberg device, but I would prefer to see Citizen combine the Bulova Precisionist movement with a Citizen Eco-Drive power source.

The Skydweller has an innovative setting mechanism, and a very elegantly implemented annual calendar complication. They've tightened their accuracy standard, and continued to introduce new movements like the 32xx line, so it seems ridiculous to claim that they don't worry about accuracy or innovation.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> Touché, I didn't notice the Spring Drive watches in that post.
> 
> If it makes you feel better, mechanical Grand Seikos have poorer accuracy specifications than Rolexes. Even the hi-beat VFA (Very Finely Adjusted) has a +3/-1 spd (when static) rating, but a real world accuracy rating of +8/-1 spd, which just seems like serious backpeddling on an accuracy claim.


My "real world" accuracy on my mere low level SBGR311 automatic is +2spd (for reference, my Spring Drive is <+1spd "real world"). So I have to say that that claim of upwards of 8spd sounds more like an anecdotal statement to me than anything else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> Why is it the greatest innovation in timepiece movements? It isn't any more accurate, requires more frequent servicing than a quartz movement, doesn't survive an EMP like a mechanical, its accuracy does not rely on exacting tolerances or careful manual adjustment, has a low power reserve relative to a quartz watch, but wait, it has this pretty sweeping seconds hand... It's a gimmick, plain and simple. I like it as a Rube Goldberg device, but I would prefer to see Citizen combine the Bulova Precisionist movement with a Citizen Eco-Drive power source.
> 
> The Skydweller has an innovative setting mechanism, and a very elegantly implemented annual calendar complication. They've tightened their accuracy standard, and continued to introduce new movements like the 32xx line, so it seems ridiculous to claim that they don't worry about accuracy or innovation.


Calling Spring Drive a "gimmick" is probably the single hottest take in this thread.

This entire post of yours read as follows: "I don't like this thing so much and, because of my bad opinion and previous backpedaling, it is clearly a gimmick."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

ahonobaka said:


> Easy to concede that Rolex beats GS on fit, and lets not forget, post sales support/servicing! They have a ways to go on either front, but I think they're headed that way out of necessity.


For sure. Grand Seiko has work to do in some areas and I think that anyone can admit that. Their customer service post-sale (their boutiques are solid, though) pretty much blows. Their clasps are more or less "meh" and their bracelets, while really good, aren't head-and-shoulders above anything out there. So I think that most GS owners can readily admit to much of that.

But then you have what ends up being essentially just a ridiculous hot take where Spring Drive is somehow labeled a "gimmick". It is what it is, I guess.


----------



## GrussGott

mleok said:


> It's a gimmick, plain and simple.


Dude, mechanical watches themselves are a rube goldberg gimmick! No sense in attempting sanctimonious principle on jewelry to get around objective fact. Nobody needs a mechanical watch, much less a fancypants one, period, QED. Survive an EMP?

Lol, I hate to tell you, but if you need your mechanical watch more than insurance after an EMP, *you're* not going to survive.


----------



## yngrshr

GrussGott said:


> Dude, mechanical watches themselves are a rube goldberg gimmick! No sense in attempting sanctimonious principle on jewelry to get around objective fact. Nobody needs a mechanical watch, much less a fancypants one, period, QED. Survive an EMP?
> 
> Lol, I hate to tell you, but if you need your mechanical watch more than insurance after an EMP, *you're* not going to survive.


I don't know about you, but I base all of my decisions on what will survive Nuclear War. I only eat MREs for that important point. My house is a literal bunker. /s


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> Calling Spring Drive a "gimmick" is probably the single hottest take in this thread.
> 
> This entire post of yours read as follows: "I don't like this thing so much and, because of my bad opinion and previous backpedaling, it is clearly a gimmick."


If you say so.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> If you say so.


I'm surprised you seem to think your silly hot take would be more well received.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> Dude, mechanical watches themselves are a rube goldberg gimmick! No sense in attempting sanctimonious principle on jewelry to get around objective fact. Nobody needs a mechanical watch, much less a fancypants one, period, QED. Survive an EMP?
> 
> Lol, I hate to tell you, but if you need your mechanical watch more than insurance after an EMP, *you're* not going to survive.


Do you even know what a Rube Goldberg device is? Which part of a mechanical movement can you remove or rationalize while still retaining the functionality?

In case you weren't aware an EMP can be created without a nuclear explosion.


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> I'm surprised you seem to think your silly hot take would be more well received.


I stand by my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> I stand by my opinion, and you're entitled to yours.


I mean, it's a silly hot take. Just because you believe it and it's an "opinion" doesn't mean it's somehow remotely valid or acceptable.

It's simply nonsensical. But it makes sense with the goalpost shifting and the "anecdotes as facts" views.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> In case you weren't aware an EMP can be created without a nuclear explosion.


FWIW, I made the"Nuclear War" joke and I never associated an EMP with a nuclear explosion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> I mean, it's a silly hot take. Just because you believe it and it's an "opinion" doesn't mean it's somehow remotely valid or acceptable.
> 
> It's simply nonsensical. But it makes sense with the goalpost shifting and the "anecdotes as facts" views.


Do you dispute any of the criticisms I've made of the Spring Drive? Calling it a hot take is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. A bit like Trump calling any criticism of him fake news. I'm happy to engage when you have an actual point to make.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> Do you dispute any of the criticisms I've made of the Spring Drive? Calling it a hot take is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. A bit like Trump calling any criticism of him fake news. I'm happy to engage when you have an actual point to make.


Calling something a "gimmick" is nothing more than a hot take. It's, ironically, an ad hominem attack on an inanimate object (if that's possible, but the fallacy remains the same). The accuracy of the movement was brought up and you dismissed it as a mere gimmick (and, no, the criticism wasn't at all valid).

So now, I see, you have moved onto projection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

BrianBinFL said:


> Someone who buys a watch with consideration toward value retention is not buying watches for the reason I buy watches. I buy watches because the satisfaction I will get from the watch is worth the price I will pay for the watch. I could not care less what the resale value is, or even if there is a resale value. Honestly the resale value of my watches is an issue for my heirs, not me.
> 
> I would submit that the extent to which the GS holds value is probably the least determinative factor in how much of a discount off suggested retail you can get. I'm sure there are factors I'm not considering but I would think that if the notion of "how much can I sell this for if I get in a pinch?" is so strong then maybe one ought not be purchasing frivolous luxury articles in the first place. And if one is going to put their emergency reserves in luxury goods they certainly should not be buying brand new ones, they should be buying used ones. Let the people who can afford to eat the depreciation without giving it a second thought do so. If you buy used then whatever you pay for it will be roughly what the watch will be worth later if you decide to sell it - assuming you don't bang it up.
> 
> It is a fact of human nature that we are much more apt to complain when we're unhappy than praise when we are happy. I suspect there are far more satisfied service customers than unsatisfied ones. That said, it is an inescapable truth that Rolex and Omega will give a service experience that is incomparably better than Grand Seiko. However, having given the matter a little thought, this should be surprising to nobody. I'll admit that I have ranted that Grand Seiko needs to take a lesson from Rolex and Omega on service if they want to play at this price point. Not long after that rant I gave the matter a bit of thought and realized that is comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Rolex and Omega make around 800,000 and 500,000 watches a year respectively (round numbers from COSC data from years past). Grand Seiko makes around 50,000 watches a year (round numbers). So there are around 50,000 watches a year spread all over the entire world. That means the number that end up in any given country is VERY small. The number of new Grand Seikos delivered to any given country in a given year is probably in the 4-digits. How many luxury retailers and service centers do you think you can support in any given country, selling what is effectively a handful of watches in that country per year? Sure, Mother Seiko is pretty large, but Mother Seiko is also selling a ton of VERY economical watches. It is simply preposterous to compare what Rolex and Omega can do when selling HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of mass produced watches a year, at prices often far beyond GS, to what Grand Seiko can do selling TENS of thousands of hand finished watches, at what I feel are comparably modest prices given the effort required to make them.
> 
> That said, Grand Seiko should have a single, dedicated service point that handles only GS watches. For best availability of parts and skill that service point should probably be at the factory in Japan. The trade off for having a single point of service should be that point of service is top-drawer, with excellent tracking, automated communication, and reasonable turnaround times. I'm not saying that GS doesn't need to improve their service but I am saying it is preposterous to compare them to what Rolex and Omega can do. If you want the type of service that can be bought when you pay many thousands of dollars for a mass produced watch by a company that makes hundreds of thousands of them, then you simply don't want a Grand Seiko.
> 
> Grand Seiko is a boutique brand. They are small. Their production numbers are closer to Vacheron Constantine and Audemars Piguet than they are to Rolex and Omega. But of course GS doesn't fetch the per unit price of VC or AP. Low volume and comparatively low prices simply does not supply the dollars for lavish ancillaries. You're buying the watch. Buy it. Wear it. Love it. Or don't.


Great post and 
Bought it


----------



## yngrshr

jmanlay said:


> Great post and
> Bought it


Congrats! Mine today!:










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> Calling something a "gimmick" is nothing more than a hot take. It's, ironically, an ad hominem attack on an inanimate object (if that's possible, but the fallacy remains the same). The accuracy of the movement was brought up and you dismissed it as a mere gimmick (and, no, the criticism wasn't at all valid).
> 
> So now, I see, you have moved onto projection.


I'm still waiting for you to address the criticisms leading to my conclusion that the Spring Drive is a gimmick, which you seem to be unwilling to engage. Again, if you want to bring up the Spring Drive, then why not just use the 9F HAQ as the basis of your comparison of accuracy?


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> I'm still waiting for you to address the criticisms leading to my conclusion that the Spring Drive is a gimmick, which you seem to be unwilling to engage. Again, if you want to bring up the Spring Drive, then why not just use the 9F HAQ as the basis of your comparison of accuracy?


You haven't made any legitimate criticisms to address. You made a weird comparison to a quartz movement in an attempt to further shift the goalposts.

You're idea of a "criticism" is simply not liking a feature of the watch (it's not as if a 72-hour Power reserve would be something to legitimately criticize). So, there's no actual "criticism" to "address".

Hell, I've laid out more legitimate criticisms than you have (primarily my dislike for GS's service).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> My "real world" accuracy on my mere low level SBGR311 automatic is +2spd (for reference, my Spring Drive is <+1spd "real world"). So I have to say that that claim of upwards of 8spd sounds more like an anecdotal statement to me than anything else.


It's Grand Seiko that makes the distinction between "accuracy (when static)" and "normal usage accuracy"

https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/movement/mechanical/9s86

http://www.swingwatch.co.id/collections/watches/grand-seiko/9s-mechanical/grand-seiko-sbgh265j/


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> It's Grand Seiko that makes the distinction between "accuracy (when static)" and "Normal usage accuracy"
> 
> https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/about/movement/mechanical/9s86
> 
> http://www.swingwatch.co.id/collections/watches/grand-seiko/9s-mechanical/grand-seiko-sbgh265j/


Seems to me to be more along the lines of how certain auto manufacturers underrate their engines.

Also, I hope you're not suggesting that Rolex is 2/2 on wrist. A simple perusal of the Rolex board would show that's not even expected by those folks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> You haven't made any legitimate criticisms to address. You made a weird comparison to a quartz movement in an attempt to further shift the goalposts.
> 
> You're idea of a "criticism" is simply not liking a feature of the watch (it's not as if a 72-hour Power reserve would be something to legitimately criticize). So, there's no actual "criticism" to "address".
> 
> Hell, I've laid out more legitimate criticisms than you have (primarily my dislike for GS's service).


Again, Spring Drive is a quartz regulated movement that has a lower power reserve than a quartz movement, is less robust, is less accurate than a high accuracy quartz, has a shorter service interval, is more expensive to service, and is more expensive. If comparing the accuracy of a mechanical Rolex to a quartz regulated Spring Drive is legitimate, then it is equally, if not more legitimate, to compare a Spring Drive to a 9F HAQ.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> They might be better finished, but they have substantial amounts of lateral play. Okay, you'll probably say that's a design decision intended to improve comfort, but that's the same excuse Rolex owners used to justify the horrid previous generation hollow midlink bracelets.


There is zero lateral play on mine so not sure if I am just lucky


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> Again, Spring Drive is a quartz regulated movement that has a lower power reserve than a quartz movement, is less robust, is less accurate than a high accuracy quartz, has a shorter service interval, is more expensive to service, and is more expensive. If comparing the accuracy of a mechanical Rolex to a quartz regulated Spring Drive is legitimate, then it is equally, if not more legitimate, to compare a Spring Drive to a 9F HAQ.


:: yawn ::

Once again, nothing in the above is an actual criticism. If that is a criticism, than all mechanical watches are also garbage compared to quartz. Which I think we both know isn't accurate. I get that you're not a fan of the technology. I think we can all see that. It's a hybrid that is one of the most outstanding advancements in watchmaking in years.

I love how you keep calling it "quartz regulated" as if to denigrate it. It's hard to tell tone over the web, but you at least make it fairly obvious. Classic attempt at "othering", frankly. Weird to see someone who brought up a certain someone use that certain someone's tactic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> There is zero lateral play on mine so not sure if I am just lucky


That's not been my experience with the Snowflakes, but maybe that's a titanium vs. stainless steel issue?


----------



## yngrshr

jmanlay said:


> There is zero lateral play on mine so not sure if I am just lucky


I'm sure you have some as it would be quite uncomfortable with ZERO. But it's certainly nothing to complain about, so agreed there for sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

yngrshr said:


> I'm sure you have some as it would be quite uncomfortable with ZERO. But it's certainly nothing to complain about, so agreed there for sure.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Zero might be extreme but it is minimal and nothing more than my oyster bracelet in exp II . As a side note I find the bracelet finish to be better in the Gs and I prefer the Gs clasp since it isn't the length of the golden gate . I find the Gs bracelet classier and more elegant but sure does lack on the fly adjustment


----------



## Mr.Jones82

I am not sure why Rolex always has to come into the equation. I like GS for what they are and not whether they compare favorably to Rolex. Does GS/Seiko put more effort into advancing their movements(arguably because they don't have the brand cache, but also because they seem to like to market their upper end watches by movements)? I tend to think so, but at the end of the day, I find it hard to argue that Rolex movements are not the more reliable of the two anyway, and unquestionably offer better aftermarket services. Spring Drive vs. Rolex 3255 etc.? Apples to oranges, although I thought comparing a SD to a Rube Goldberg device was a bit harsh and in all honestly could apply to mechanical watches in general if you wanted to stretch it a bit. 
Anyway, at the end of the day I don't really care how GS movements compare to Rolex or any other brands. I buy GS's because I love the fit, finish, dials, and yes, even the bracelets. Yes, like it or not, GS fails to beat Rolex in several important areas (does it really diminish GS's stature as a luxury watch to admit this??), but not the areas that are important to me I guess, hence my continued loyalty to the brand.


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> :: yawn ::
> 
> Once again, nothing in the above is an actual criticism. If that is a criticism, than all mechanical watches are also garbage compared to quartz. Which I think we both know isn't accurate. I get that you're not a fan of the technology. I think we can all see that. It's a hybrid that is one of the most outstanding advancements in watchmaking in years.
> 
> I love how you keep calling it "quartz regulated" as if to denigrate it. It's hard to tell tone over the web, but you at least make it fairly obvious.


A mechanical watch is certainly an anachronism. For me, the appeal is the exceptional accuracy that is achievable using purely mechanical means, using physical principles that Newton would have understood. By using microelectronics and a feedback controller as the underlying basis for its accuracy, the Spring Drive naturally evokes a comparison with quartz movements, and in that comparison, it falls short.

Clearly, you're a fan, although I've yet to hear you clearly articulate why. Again, in what way is it an improvement over a HAQ quartz? I don't have an issue with quartz watches, I simply don't see how replacing the battery with a mainspring at the cost of increasing the service costs, reducing reliability, decreasing service intervals, is an improvement, much less "one of most outstanding advancements in watchmaking in years."


----------



## mleok

Mr.Jones82 said:


> I am not sure why Rolex always has to come into the equation. I like GS for what they are and not whether they compare favorably to Rolex. Does GS/Seiko put more effort into advancing their movements(arguably because they don't have the brand cache, but also because they seem to like to market their upper end watches by movements)? I tend to think so, but at the end of the day, I find it hard to argue that Rolex movements are not the more reliable of the two anyway, and unquestionably offer better aftermarket services. Spring Drive vs. Rolex 3255 etc.? Apples to oranges, although I thought comparing a SD to a Rube Goldberg device was a bit harsh and in all honestly could apply to mechanical watches in general if you wanted to stretch it a bit.
> 
> Anyway, at the end of the day I don't really care how GS movements compare to Rolex or any other brands. I buy GS's because I love the fit, finish, dials, and yes, even the bracelets. Yes, like it or not, GS fails to beat Rolex in several important areas (does it really diminish GS's stature as a luxury watch to admit this??), but not the areas that are important to me I guess, hence my continued loyalty to the brand.


Thank you for your balanced perspective on this issue. Ultimately, luxury watch purchases are an intrinsically idiosyncratic choice. Even if one attempts to approach it in an objective fashion, it involves optimizing over multiple factors, and depending on how you weigh these factors, you can arrive at distinct, but equally valid alternatives. As I have said before in other threads, both Grand Seiko and Rolex are Pareto optimal in their own way, depending on what features you value.


----------



## manofrolex

Mr.Jones82 said:


> Anyway, at the end of the day I don't really care how GS movements compare to Rolex or any other brands. I buy GS's because I love the fit, finish, dials, and yes, even the bracelets. Yes, like it or not, GS fails to beat Rolex in several important areas (does it really diminish GS's stature as a luxury watch to admit this??), but not the areas that are important to me I guess, hence my continued loyalty to the brand.


Basically spot on , and the same for me I buy what looks good to me and what is very well finished and crafted which in the segment that I play in includes GS and Rolex . Movement robustness is important though but spring drive tech has been around awhile and they will be serviceable in the future so I don't worry one iota . I think Gs and Rolex complement each other nicely ...


----------



## GrussGott

mleok said:


> *Do you even know what a Rube Goldberg device is?* In case you weren't aware an EMP can be created without a nuclear explosion.


Yeah, and between the two of us, I'm the only one who does:

_A Rube Goldberg machine is a machine intentionally designed to perform a simple task in an indirect and over-complicated fashion._​
So a simple task like telling the time, except with with mechanical springs and balance wheels that's hand assembled - when you can buy a digital watch with a chronometer for <$1. Wow, how deeply are you deluding yourself here, cause it seems like we still have a ways to go before we find the bottom ...

As for EMPs, yup, pretty aware of that as i'm an electrical engineer by training, and personally been the victim of them twice - one time it blew out everything in our house with electronics: TVs, computers, microwave and other appliances, cameras, lawn irrigation, car, you name it! Anyway, my point is that your home owner's insurance is extremely generous about replacing stuff - seriously - we came out WAY better. Now I have a spare cell phone in a faraday cage bag. Anyway, the last thing I was thinking was, "OMG! if only I knew the exact time! Curses!"

Point is, if you think you have anything on your wrist other than Rube Goldberg jewelry, then why stop lying to yourself there?

I heard you're also married to Kate Upton, a professional athlete, a world famous explorer, and an astronaut!

Congrats bro!

As for Spring Drive, I like it. I also like the robots and frickin laser beams that make Sistem51s and think that's pretty damn innovative. You don't have to, there's room for us all. Big tent this thing, is my advice.


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> Yeah, and between the two of us, I'm the only one who does:
> 
> _A Rube Goldberg machine is a machine intentionally designed to perform a simple task in an indirect and over-complicated fashion._​
> So a simple task like telling the time, except with with mechanical springs and balance wheels that's hand assembled - when you can buy a digital watch with a chronometer for <$1. Wow, how deeply are you deluding yourself here, cause it seems like we still have a ways to go before we find the bottom ...


A mechanical watch at its essence is a pretty simple device, it has a mainspring to store energy, an escapement to prevent all that energy from being released too quickly, and a mechanical oscillator to regulate the rate of the escapement, and gears are used to drive hands that indicate the time. There is an elegance and efficiency to its design that is hardly Rube Goldberg in any reasonable sense. The essential timekeeping features can be realized using surprisingly few components, as this plastic windup clock toy demonstrates.






In contrast, in a quartz watch, you have a battery which excites a piezoelectric oscillator, and the electrical impulses from these are counted using a microelectronic controller, and this drives electrical signals that change the polarization of liquid crystal in order to indicate the time.

Just because the mechanical watch is more expensive to produce, does not mean that it is a more complicated device. On the contrary, just try to produce a single digital quartz watch from scratch and you'll see just how much of a production it actually is.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> A mechanical watch is certainly an anachronism. For me, the appeal is the exceptional accuracy that is achievable using purely mechanical means, using physical principles that Newton would have understood. By using microelectronics and a feedback controller as the underlying basis for its accuracy, the Spring Drive naturally evokes a comparison with quartz movements, and in that comparison, it falls short.
> 
> Clearly, you're a fan, although I've yet to hear you clearly articulate why. Again, in what way is it an improvement over a HAQ quartz? I don't have an issue with quartz watches, I simply don't see how replacing the battery with a mainspring at the cost of increasing the service costs, reducing reliability, decreasing service intervals, is an improvement, much less "one of most outstanding advancements in watchmaking in years."


This is filled with bias. It's the same as saying a hybrid vehicle is more of an electric vehicle (if for some reason you dislike electrics). You're allowing your weird bias to cloud your view.

The Spring Drive is a hybrid movement. It's not closer to a quartz movement. So you continuing to push it that way, due to your obvious bias against quartz movements, essentially continues to prove my point: Your hot takes and goalpost shifting has yet to produce any actual criticisms of the movement. You are espousing a different opinion on the movement (you clearly aren't a fan, which is fine). But I've yet to see legitimate criticism from you. I don't think anyone has a problem with you not liking a movement for some reason (personally, I love it but I also love my purely mechanical pieces and recognize them as vastly different). But that doesn't equal legitimate criticism.

The Spring Drive combines the best of purely mechanical and quartz movements. Calling it closer to one or the other misses the point. Which is why, as a poster above put it, it's a huge advancement in technology. The ability to have near-quartz accuracy in a movement not reliant on a battery is incredible. The concept of taking a quartz crystal to better the frequency of a typical mechanical watch is genius.

Continue with the "gimmick" hot take, though. It's at least amusing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex

yngrshr said:


> This is filled with bias. It's the same as saying a hybrid vehicle is more of an electric vehicle (if for some reason you dislike electrics). You're allowing your weird bias to cloud your view.
> 
> The Spring Drive is a hybrid movement. It's not closer to a quartz movement. So you continuing to push it that way, due to your obvious bias against quartz movements, essentially continues to prove my point: Your hot takes and goalpost shifting has yet to produce any actual criticisms of the movement. You are espousing a different opinion on the movement (you clearly aren't a fan, which is fine). But I've yet to see legitimate criticism from you. I don't think anyone has a problem with you not liking a movement for some reason (personally, I love it but I also love my purely mechanical pieces and recognize them as vastly different). But that doesn't equal legitimate criticism.
> 
> The Spring Drive combines the best of purely mechanical and quartz movements. Calling it closer to one or the other misses the point. Which is why, as a poster above put it, it's a huge advancement in technology. The ability to have near-quartz accuracy in a movement not reliant on a battery is incredible. The concept of taking a quartz crystal to better the frequency of a typical mechanical watch is genius.
> 
> Continue with the "gimmick" hot take, though. It's at least amusing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I will give you that, you don't let go easily and for that I commend you.
In honor of the fantastic tech that is a SD and for really pushing for clarification from a fellow member I shall show this, one more time










I wasn't too thrilled w the quartz bit at first w the whole it doesn't have a soul nonsense like a fully mechanical watch as soul in the first place (it doesn't ) but once I moved on past my own self limitations and really objectively looked at what GS had built I had to have one. Who needs a tourbillon no one, who needs a moon-phase no one, who needs a mechanical watch w antiquated tech...no one BUT you and I bought this watch because it is mesmerizing and the movement mixing quartz tech and mechanical while invariably pointless is remarkably ingenious and impressive and that my man is the whole point.


----------



## yngrshr

jmanlay said:


> I will give you that, you don't let go easily and for that I commend you.
> In honor of the fantastic tech that is a SD and for really pushing for clarification from a fellow member I shall show this, one more time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't too thrilled w the quartz bit at first w the whole it doesn't have a soul nonsense like a fully mechanical watch as soul in the first place (it doesn't ) but once I moved on past my own self limitations and really objectively looked at what GS had built I had to have one. Who needs a tourbillon no one, who needs a moon-phase no one, who needs a mechanical watch w antiquated tech...no one BUT you and I bought this watch because it is mesmerizing and the movement mixing quartz tech and mechanical while invariably pointless is remarkably ingenious and impressive and that my man is the whole point.


I just don't let go of hot take-y stuff, frankly. Lol! I don't see a need to call an advancement like SD a "gimmick" (which seems to be rooted in mere dislike for the movement rather than out of any actual, legitimate criticism). It seems arrogant-for-the-sake-of-arrogance, if you will.

I have to say that your SBGE201's green fabric strap is what convinced me to take the bracelet off mine. It's such a great look.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RPF

yngrshr said:


> I just don't let go of hot take-y stuff, frankly. Lol! I don't see a need to call an advancement like SD a "gimmick" (which seems to be rooted in mere dislike for the movement rather than out of any actual, legitimate criticism). It seems arrogant-for-the-sake-of-arrogance, if you will.
> 
> I have to say that your SBGE201's green fabric strap is what convinced me to take the bracelet off mine. It's such a great look.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Pretty soon he may ask you to prove your creds because you have to earn the right to speak. Which is strange because he spends so much time on the gs forum when he doesnt even like the brand much and most of his "contribution" is criticism anyway.

Any owner of a patek that goes on and on about rube goldberg and accuracy and rolex innovation can be ignored, at least on the gs forum. Patek does not even market accuracy and they still make watches that dont hack but cost more. Rolex is primarily a material science company keeping 1755 tech alive while the spring drive has 200 plus patents and 200 plus parts, way more complicated, way more difficult to build and assemble, and absolutely unique. And i can easily make any rolex perform worse than 4s a day. That includes the new 32xx with the mems cut escapement.


----------



## Premise

I definitely see Spring Drive as a huge selling point. It has all the perks of a traditional mechanical with less drawbacks. An SD at some point will be purchased. I have completely lost interest in picking up more traditional mechanicals.


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> This is filled with bias. It's the same as saying a hybrid vehicle is more of an electric vehicle (if for some reason you dislike electrics). You're allowing your weird bias to cloud your view.
> 
> The Spring Drive is a hybrid movement. It's not closer to a quartz movement. So you continuing to push it that way, due to your obvious bias against quartz movements, essentially continues to prove my point: Your hot takes and goalpost shifting has yet to produce any actual criticisms of the movement. You are espousing a different opinion on the movement (you clearly aren't a fan, which is fine). But I've yet to see legitimate criticism from you. I don't think anyone has a problem with you not liking a movement for some reason (personally, I love it but I also love my purely mechanical pieces and recognize them as vastly different). But that doesn't equal legitimate criticism.
> 
> The Spring Drive combines the best of purely mechanical and quartz movements. Calling it closer to one or the other misses the point. Which is why, as a poster above put it, it's a huge advancement in technology. The ability to have near-quartz accuracy in a movement not reliant on a battery is incredible. The concept of taking a quartz crystal to better the frequency of a typical mechanical watch is genius.
> 
> Continue with the "gimmick" hot take, though. It's at least amusing.


A watch is a timekeeping device, and we're discussing the accuracy of the Spring Drive. Where do you think the Spring Drive derives that accuracy from? From counting the vibrations of a quartz oscillator. In the absence of the feedback control which compares the rate of the rotation of the glide wheel this time reference, the Spring Drive has a very rapid rate, as illustrated by what happens when it starts up from rest, and before the tri-synchronous regulator kicks in. A Spring Drive's rate is not simply "better[ed]" by the quartz reference, it is woefully inaccurate as a timekeeping device without it.

A Spring Drive is innovative in that it powers microelectronic components using a mainspring instead of a battery, but that's ultimately just a question of how one stores the energy. It is also innovative in how it converts that quartz reference signal into a smooth display of time, but it is not innovative in terms of how it keeps accurate time.

You claim that the Spring Drive combines the best of mechanical and quartz movements, and the points I raised before point out that in my opinion it combines the worst of mechanical and quartz movements, it has the power reserve of a mechanical movement, the more expensive and more frequent service requirements of a mechanical, and it has the unserviceable microelectronic components of a quartz movement, which makes it forever reliant on the manufacturer continuing to supply parts.

Put simply, what makes storing your energy in a mainspring better than storing it in a battery or capacitor? A mainspring provides a lower power reserve, and it still needs to be replaced during servicing.


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> A watch is a timekeeping device, and we're discussing the accuracy of the Spring Drive. Where do you think the Spring Drive derives that accuracy from? From counting the vibrations of a quartz oscillator. In the absence of the feedback control which compares the rate of the rotation of the glide wheel this time reference, the Spring Drive has a very rapid rate, as illustrated by what happens when it starts up from rest, and before the tri-synchronous regulator kicks in. A Spring Drive's rate is not simply "better[ed]" by the quartz reference, it is woefully inaccurate as a timekeeping device without it.
> 
> A Spring Drive is innovative in that it powers microelectronic components using a mainspring instead of a battery, but that's ultimately just a question of how one stores the energy. It is also innovative in how it converts that quartz reference signal into a smooth display of time, but it is not innovative in terms of how it keeps accurate time.
> 
> You claim that the Spring Drive combines the best of mechanical and quartz movements, and the points I raised before point out that in my opinion it combines the worst of mechanical and quartz movements, it has the power reserve of a mechanical movement, the more expensive and more frequent service requirements of a mechanical, and it has the unserviceable microelectronic components of a quartz movement, which makes it forever reliant on the manufacturer continuing to supply parts.
> 
> Put simply, what makes storing your energy in a mainspring better than storing it in a battery or capacitor? A mainspring provides a lower power reserve, and it still needs to be replaced during servicing.


Once again, this is purely opinion and not actual legitimate criticism of the movement. I'm not sure why you're so intent on conflating the two. It's amusing but becoming tedious. I think we all get that you don't like the technology, but your inability to provide an actual criticism should make you step away at this point.

The idea that the accuracy of a quartz without ever having to replace a battery is somehow "the worst" of Quartz is comical. But you do you, man. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

RPF said:


> Pretty soon he may ask you to prove your creds because you have to earn the right to speak. Which is strange because he spends so much time on the gs forum when he doesnt even like the brand much and most of his "contribution" is criticism anyway.
> 
> Any owner of a patek that goes on and on about rube goldberg and accuracy and rolex innovation can be ignored, at least on the gs forum. Patek does not even market accuracy and they still make watches that dont hack but cost more. Rolex is primarily a material science company keeping 1755 tech alive while the spring drive has 200 plus patents and 200 plus parts, way more complicated, way more difficult to build and assemble, and absolutely unique. And i can easily make any rolex perform worse than 4s a day. That includes the new 32xx with the mems cut escapement.


Agreed. To be honest, it comes off as the equivalent of a 3-Series or 5-Series owner masquerading as a luxury car expert.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

The irony of this entire discussion is that nobody seems to bring up the one thing that the Spring Drive, through its hybrid design, is unsurpassed for, which is the smoothness of the second hand sweep, and that is because unlike any other second hand, it never goes back to zero instantaneous velocity while it remains powered, and it is only discontinuous in its angular acceleration.

A Spring Drive is the most accurate movement that looks like a mechanical movement from the caseback (because the full plate design hides the microelectronics), and it has the smoothest available second hand sweep. However, being impressed by the fact that it achieves quartz-like accuracy just suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of how a Spring Drive actually works.


----------



## mleok

yngrshr said:


> Once again, this is purely opinion and not actual legitimate criticism of the movement. I'm not sure why you're so intent on conflating the two. It's amusing but becoming tedious. I think we all get that you don't like the technology, but your inability to provide an actual criticism should make you step away at this point.
> 
> The idea that the accuracy of a quartz without ever having to replace a battery is somehow "the worst" of Quartz is comical. But you do you, man.


Again, I asked a simple question, which of the best features of purely quartz and purely mechanical movements does a Spring Drive combine?


----------



## DustinS

yngrshr said:


> Seems to me to be more along the lines of how certain auto manufacturers underrate their engines.
> 
> Also, I hope you're not suggesting that Rolex is 2/2 on wrist. A simple perusal of the Rolex board would show that's not even expected by those folks.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Neither of my GS's are or eve were killing it in terms of accuracy. Both are barely in tolerance. Just a sample of 2, but still....the idea that everyone is getting +1 or 2 seconds is false.


----------



## yngrshr

DustinS said:


> Neither of my GS's are or eve were killing it in terms of accuracy. Both are barely in tolerance. Just a sample of 2, but still....the idea that everyone is getting +1 or 2 seconds is false.


I mean, that's kinda my point. It seems incredibly anecdotal to suggest that GS is somehow below Rolex in terms of accuracy (let's set aside the SD movement) when you can peruse the Rolex board and also find folks who have watches slightly out of or barely hitting tolerance.

I never suggested that +/- 1 or 2 was something "everyone [was] getting". Just addressing the anecdotal stuff brought up as alleged evidence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ahonobaka

I try to keep a high threshold of tolerance, but have to say this exercise in intellectual one upping has grown tiring (I know I know, "you don't have to read/participate if you don't like it").

Please allow me to summarize: 

-mleok does not like Spring Drive and thinks GS' mechanical movements are lagging, and therefore is not likely to buy a GS though is certainly entitled to his personal opinion
-GS fans on GS forum like GS watches and movements, and therefore buy GS watches and defend the brand
-The dwindling middle class' struggles and aspirations are overlooked again

Thanks!


----------



## DustinS

yngrshr said:


> I mean, that's kinda my point. It seems incredibly anecdotal to suggest that GS is somehow below Rolex in terms of accuracy (let's set aside the SD movement) when you can peruse the Rolex board and also find folks who have watches slightly out of or barely hitting tolerance.
> 
> I never suggested that +/- 1 or 2 was something "everyone [was] getting". Just addressing the anecdotal stuff brought up as alleged evidence.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Rolex has a warranty that stands by a tighter tolerance (in the last couple of years) than GS. To me a big reason I chose my first GS was a higher accuracy standard and today if I were to look at that, I'd likely look at Omega and Rolex who have upped their standards.

While some watches will fail these tests, the fact that these companies are putting their money on the line in terms of having to fix out of spec watches, that's good enough for me to say they're more accurate in that we the buyer are assured a tighter range of accuracy. I don't care to argue semantics of what more accurate means, but being given a better worst case is to me a win.


----------



## yngrshr

ahonobaka said:


> I try to keep a high threshold of tolerance, but have to say this exercise in intellectual one upping has grown tiring (I know I know, "you don't have to read/participate if you don't like it").
> 
> Please allow me to summarize:
> 
> -mleok does not like Spring Drive and thinks GS' mechanical movements are lagging, and therefore is not likely to buy a GS though is certainly entitled to his personal opinion
> -GS fans on GS forum like GS watches and movements, and therefore buy GS watches and defend the brand
> -The dwindling middle class' struggles and aspirations are overlooked again
> 
> Thanks!


That about sums it up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yngrshr

DustinS said:


> Rolex has a warranty that stands by a tighter tolerance (in the last couple of years) than GS. To me a big reason I chose my first GS was a higher accuracy standard and today if I were to look at that, I'd likely look at Omega and Rolex who have upped their standards.


I think that goes to a part I readily admit: Seiko's post-sale service leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, you're preaching to the choir with that one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

ahonobaka said:


> -mleok does not like Spring Drive and thinks GS' mechanical movements are lagging, and therefore is not likely to buy a GS though is certainly entitled to his personal opinion!


Well, I won't be buying a Spring Drive or a mechanical GS, but I've been looking at the 9F HAQ GSs, in particular a SBGV225. But, it's certainly possible that I'll choose to get a Citizen Chronomaster AQ4020-54Y with the Washi paper dial instead. They're currently both bookmarked, waiting for another one of Ratuken's crazy cashback offers.


----------



## DustinS

yngrshr said:


> I think that goes to a part I readily admit: Seiko's post-sale service leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, you're preaching to the choir with that one.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I disagree completely. The speed and ease of which they fix an out of spec watch is service. The accuracy standard is a specification of the watch (which they proudly even reference on the movements stating 6 positions and what not). Rolex today has a higher standard to Grand Seiko. That is like stating 0-60 on a car. It's a sign of the minimum expected performance of the product.


----------



## drhr

mleok said:


> Well, I won't be buying a Spring Drive or a mechanical GS, but I've been looking at the 9F HAQ GSs, in particular a SBGV225. But, it's certainly possible that I'll choose to get a Citizen Chronomaster AQ4020-54Y with the Washi paper dial instead. They're currently both bookmarked, waiting for another one of Ratuken's crazy cashback offers.


Whoa, pretty nice (is that black or blue?) but if quartz, I just can't do it . . . GS actually has a lot of quartz models that I'd jump on if they were mechanical (not SD) . . .


----------



## yngrshr

mleok said:


> Well, I won't be buying a Spring Drive or a mechanical GS, but I've been looking at the 9F HAQ GSs, in particular a SBGV225. But, it's certainly possible that I'll choose to get a Citizen Chronomaster AQ4020-54Y with the Washi paper dial instead. They're currently both bookmarked, waiting for another one of Ratuken's crazy cashback offers.


I agree with you on the Citizen. Have one bookmarked on Chrono24 right now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mleok

drhr said:


> Whoa, pretty nice (is that black or blue?) but if quartz, I just can't do it . . . GS actually has a lot of quartz models that I'd jump on if they were mechanical (not SD) . . .


It's blue. The attraction for me is that the case dimensions is perfect for my wrist, not to big or small in diameter, and thin. This is a 40mm in diameter, 10mm in thickness case. The mechanical analogues tend to be 13.3mm in thickness, and either 37mm or 42mm in diameter.


----------



## drhr

mleok said:


> It's blue. The attraction for me is that the case dimensions is perfect for my wrist, not to big or small in diameter, and thin. This is a 40mm in diameter, 10mm in thickness case. The mechanical analogues tend to be 13.3mm in thickness, and either 37mm or 42mm in diameter.


Outstanding, arigato!!!


----------



## BrianBinFL

Excluding the Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P, which almost doesn't count because they only made 118 of them, they cost $70,000 each, and are not currently in production, I contend that watches featuring the Spring Drive movement are the only truly analog watches on the planet.

They don't _simulate_ being a truly analog watch the way the Bulova Accutron/Precisionist does, they _are_ analog watches. Everything in the Spring Drive is moving at all times. The watch is never at rest (unless it has wound down) and everything moves in only one direction - much like time does. Yes, the Spring Drive needs the help of a computer to make this happen, and there is some irony in that, but all of the rest of the watches out there, even those that are 100% mechanical, *count* time, they do not _measure_ it.

Starting with the mechanical watches, they have a power source _capable_ of being truly analog (a mainspring) but between the mainspring and the hands necessarily sits an escapement to meter the flow of power. That escapement features a balance wheel, pallet fork, and escape wheel. The balance goes back and forth at some frequency and via the pallet fork locks and unlocks the escape wheel letting it count the time. The watch starts and stops. 3 Hz, 4 Hz, 5 Hz, a certain number of starts and stops equals a second. Time is released in little bursts, which is of course not how time works. If you have a 3 Hz (6 beats per second) watch then your seconds hand is only capable of displaying .0, .166, .333, .5, .666, .833 seconds. If you have a 4 Hz watch the seconds hand shows smaller increments, but it's still "steps" and steps equal time and that's not truly analog.

Next the traditional quartz. They are usually 1 Hz. One beat equals 1 second. The power source and escapement have been replaced with a quartz crystal, a frequency divider circuit, and a solenoid. Everything following the replaced-escapement is pretty much the same as a traditional mechanical watch. These count time in a way much more obvious than the purely mechanical watches do as they are only capable of displaying .0 seconds (assuming your watch "hits the marks").

Next the original Bulova Accutron. I dig this watch. It's a rather unique quartz movement where the physical vibration (at 360 Hz) of the tuning-fork shaped crystal actually *mechanically* advances a gear. The teeth on this gear are so small that nobody outside Bulova actually knows how they make it, according to the last article I read about it. The frequency is high enough that the seconds hand _appears_ to be perfectly smooth. In truth the seconds hand is still advancing in steps, but each step is 2.77 *thousandths* of a second so that's pretty darn smooth. Unlike the Spring Drive, these *are* a gimmick as the appearance of being a truly analog watch is an illusion. It is just a very high beat rate electro-mechanical watch. The successor to the original Accutron is the Precisionist - which is also a pretender.

Next are "smart quartz" watches (a term I think we sort of invented here). These are "watches" that are really just computers that know what time it is, use a quartz crystal as a time reference, and sometimes use an external time source to periodically true up their understanding of what time it is. The hands on these watches are a contrivance that are moved by motors. Unlike all of the other watches discussed so far the hands only display the time and in no way "keep" the time. To conserve battery the hands are usually updated at a frequency of 1 Hz. Of course these are not truly analog.

Finally there is the truly analog Spring Drive. The hands don't move at any frequency (no Hz) because there are no beats or steps. The power source is a main spring which is of course capable of delivering analog power as it unwinds. But rather than "ruining" this smooth, analog delivery of time, and turning it into a counter with a ticky-ticky escapement, the unwinding mainspring spins a glide wheel which is both used to generate electricity and which is also acted upon with a braking force that is metered by a microprocessor that is powered by the electricity the glide wheel generated. The brake never stops the glide wheel, it just opposes it just enough to make sure it is spinning at a speed that matches the passage of time. As previously discussed, everything in the Spring Drive is constantly moving forward, and time is delivered in a smooth, *analog* fashion, just the way real time occurs. Unlike the Accutron the smoothness of the seconds hand is not a gimmick or an illusion, it is truly smooth. There are zero "steps" and the hands have an _infinite_ number of positions.

Whether the Spring Drive is made by combining the best features of mechanical and quartz, or by combining the worst attributes of both, is an inane argument - much like arguing over whether the glass is half empty or half full. It is what it is. It is a very unique movement that uses mechanical capabilities and electronic capabilities to achieve a very special result. Obviously the mechanical parts have the benefits and downfalls of mechanical parts and the electronic parts have the same. This should not be noteworthy to anybody.

The end result is what's noteworthy. Unless you have $70,000 to spend and can find one of the 118 owners willing to part with their Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P, you simply can't get this mode of time delivery anywhere else. The fact that the seconds hand is smooth isn't the point, the point is *why* the seconds hand is smooth. If I just wanted a smooth seconds hand I could get an Accutron or a Precisionist. But those *are* gimmicks and only pretend to be what the Spring Drive actually is.

Sorry, that was still really long even though I tried to only address the single topic that I disagreed with the most in this thread.


----------



## BrianBinFL

I should add to the above that although Spring Drive is my favorite, I otherwise prefer 100% mechanical watches. I do have some traditional quartz and some smart quartz watches, but only a few. 

I have actually considered buying an original Accutron just because I think they are horologically significant and I think they are really cool, but I don't think I'd actually wear any of the models I've seen and I'm not going to buy a watch just to be a museum piece.


----------



## mleok

BrianBinFL said:


> Excluding the Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P, which almost doesn't count because they only made 118 of them, they cost $70,000 each, and are not currently in production, I contend that watches featuring the Spring Drive movement are the only truly analog watches on the planet.
> 
> They don't _simulate_ being a truly analog watch the way the Bulova Accutron/Precisionist does, they _are_ analog watches. Everything in the Spring Drive is moving at all times. The watch is never at rest (unless it has wound down) and everything moves in only one direction - much like time does. Yes, the Spring Drive needs the help of a computer to make this happen, and there is some irony in that, but all of the rest of the watches out there, even those that are 100% mechanical, *count* time, they do not _measure_ it.
> 
> Starting with the mechanical watches, they have a power source _capable_ of being truly analog (a mainspring) but between the mainspring and the hands necessarily sits an escapement to meter the flow of power. That escapement features a balance wheel, pallet fork, and escape wheel. The balance goes back and forth at some frequency and via the pallet fork locks and unlocks the escape wheel letting it count the time. The watch starts and stops. 3 Hz, 4 Hz, 5 Hz, a certain number of starts and stops equals a second. Time is released in little bursts, which is of course not how time works. If you have a 3 Hz (6 beats per second) watch then your seconds hand is only capable of displaying .0, .166, .333, .5, .666, .833 seconds. If you have a 4 Hz watch the seconds hand shows smaller increments, but it's still "steps" and steps equal time and that's not truly analog.
> 
> Next the traditional quartz. They are usually 1 Hz. One beat equals 1 second. The power source and escapement have been replaced with a quartz crystal, a frequency divider circuit, and a solenoid. Everything following the replaced-escapement is pretty much the same as a traditional mechanical watch. These count time in a way much more obvious than the purely mechanical watches do as they are only capable of displaying .0 seconds (assuming your watch "hits the marks").
> 
> Next the original Bulova Accutron. I dig this watch. It's a rather unique quartz movement where the physical vibration (at 360 Hz) of the tuning-fork shaped crystal actually *mechanically* advances a gear. The teeth on this gear are so small that nobody outside Bulova actually knows how they make it, according to the last article I read about it. The frequency is high enough that the seconds hand _appears_ to be perfectly smooth. In truth the seconds hand is still advancing in steps, but each step is 2.77 *thousandths* of a second so that's pretty darn smooth. Unlike the Spring Drive, these *are* a gimmick as the appearance of being a truly analog watch is an illusion. It is just a very high beat rate electro-mechanical watch. The successor to the original Accutron is the Precisionist - which is also a pretender.
> 
> Next are "smart quartz" watches (a term I think we sort of invented here). These are "watches" that are really just computers that know what time it is, use a quartz crystal as a time reference, and sometimes use an external time source to periodically true up their understanding of what time it is. The hands on these watches are a contrivance that are moved by motors. Unlike all of the other watches discussed so far the hands only display the time and in no way "keep" the time. To conserve battery the hands are usually updated at a frequency of 1 Hz. Of course these are not truly analog.
> 
> Finally there is the truly analog Spring Drive. The hands don't move at any frequency (no Hz) because there are no beats or steps. The power source is a main spring which is of course capable of delivering analog power as it unwinds. But rather than "ruining" this smooth, analog delivery of time, and turning it into a counter with a ticky-ticky escapement, the unwinding mainspring spins a glide wheel which is both used to generate electricity and which is also acted upon with a braking force that is metered by a microprocessor that is powered by the electricity the glide wheel generated. The brake never stops the glide wheel, it just opposes it just enough to make sure it is spinning at a speed that matches the passage of time. As previously discussed, everything in the Spring Drive is constantly moving forward, and time is delivered in a smooth, *analog* fashion, just the way real time occurs. Unlike the Accutron the smoothness of the seconds hand is not a gimmick or an illusion, it is truly smooth. There are zero "steps" and the hands have an _infinite_ number of positions.
> 
> Whether the Spring Drive is made by combining the best features of mechanical and quartz, or by combining the worst attributes of both, is an inane argument - much like arguing over whether the glass is half empty or half full. It is what it is. It is a very unique movement that uses mechanical capabilities and electronic capabilities to achieve a very special result. Obviously the mechanical parts have the benefits and downfalls of mechanical parts and the electronic parts have the same. This should not be noteworthy to anybody.
> 
> The end result is what's noteworthy. Unless you have $70,000 to spend and can find one of the 118 owners willing to part with their Piaget Emperador Coussin XL 700P, you simply can't get this mode of time delivery anywhere else. The fact that the seconds hand is smooth isn't the point, the point is *why* the seconds hand is smooth. If I just wanted a smooth seconds hand I could get an Accutron or a Precisionist. But those *are* gimmicks and only pretend to be what the Spring Drive actually is.
> 
> Sorry, that was still really long even though I tried to only address the single topic that I disagreed with the most in this thread.


Didn't I make a similar point upthread?



mleok said:


> The irony of this entire discussion is that nobody seems to bring up the one thing that the Spring Drive, through its hybrid design, is unsurpassed for, which is the smoothness of the second hand sweep, and that is because unlike any other second hand, it never goes back to zero instantaneous velocity while it remains powered, and it is only discontinuous in its angular acceleration.
> 
> A Spring Drive is the most accurate movement that looks like a mechanical movement from the caseback (because the full plate design hides the microelectronics), and it has the smoothest available second hand sweep. However, being impressed by the fact that it achieves quartz-like accuracy just suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of how a Spring Drive actually works.


----------



## GrussGott

mleok said:


> Just because the mechanical watch is more expensive to produce, does not mean that it is a more complicated device. On the contrary, just try to produce a single digital quartz watch from scratch and you'll see just how much of a production it actually is.


A hand assembled mechanical watch is about the most complex way imaginable to do a simple task - know the time.

Hey - you know what what would be way easier than making up bullshiit to justify stupid stuff you wrote? Just say, "yeah, I misspoke, it's true a mechanical is really complex way to know the time, but we love them for their old world romance and style". Everyone will get behind that and respect you for your integrity.

See how much better honesty is? Try it!


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> A hand assembled mechanical watch is about the most complex way imaginable to do a simple task - know the time.
> 
> Hey - you know what what would be way easier than making up bullshiit to justify stupid stuff you wrote? Just say, "yeah, I misspoke, it's true a mechanical is really complex way to know the time, but we love them for their old world romance and style". Everyone will get behind that and respect you for your integrity.
> 
> See how much better honesty is? Try it!


Do you know how hard it is to produce an integrated circuit? The only sense a quartz watch is simple is if you treat the underlying components as if they were black boxes. Why don't you try to argue a point without making it personal? Try it!


----------



## RPF

DustinS said:


> Rolex has a warranty that stands by a tighter tolerance (in the last couple of years) than GS. To me a big reason I chose my first GS was a higher accuracy standard and today if I were to look at that, I'd likely look at Omega and Rolex who have upped their standards.
> 
> While some watches will fail these tests, the fact that these companies are putting their money on the line in terms of having to fix out of spec watches, that's good enough for me to say they're more accurate in that we the buyer are assured a tighter range of accuracy. I don't care to argue semantics of what more accurate means, but being given a better worst case is to me a win.


Yes. But can you buy a rolex for gs money, 3 to 5k?

Rolex moved up the food chain. They should have specs to distinguish them from the rest of the pack, though i do have reservations over a design that can tighten the envelop by more than half without modification. Maybe it is the hairspring. But really. High priced watches and accuracy? Many tourbillons are manual wound and dont hack.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> Didn't I make a similar point upthread?


Yes. I've been working on a reply to this topic since yesterday. Drafting, discarding, redrafting, discarding again, etc. I started out trying to reply to everything in this thread that I took exception to and that got VERY lengthy. Then I decided I wasn't going to reply at all. Then I picked just a few topics and that still got waaaaay too long.

I finally settled on just responding to the topic that that I had the biggest issue with - which was Spring Drive. I worked on the post over a period of several hours - drafting a bit, doing something else, coming back to it, and so on. At some point I saw your post and thought "damn, I really wish I would have written this and posted it yesterday" - lol.


----------



## GrussGott

mleok said:


> Do you know how hard it is to produce an integrated circuit? *The only sense a quartz watch is simple is if you treat the underlying components as if they were black boxes*.


And a quartz movement was so so simple, and so cheap that it almost entirely killed the mechanical watch industry starting with Seiko's Astron 35SQ in 1969 which is so famous it's an IEEE milestone. Quartz movements were so successful they were plopped into EVERYTHING: kitchen timers, military equipment like bombs, appliances, you name it. The Swiss got in the game too with Rolex, Patek, Omega, IWC, and others developing the Beta 21, in watches like the Rolex Oysterquartz calibre 5100, the Patek Cercle d'Or, and the Omega electroquartz.

Anyway, I guess you haven't heard of the Quartz Crisis but it was totally a thing. I don't blame you for not knowing, it's hard to see today.

So dude: wrong direction with your mechanical-movements-are-simple arguments ... as for an IC, yes I do know how hard it is to produce them as I used to design them and live and work in silicon valley. See, once designed, they can be (and are) mass produced for fractions of a cent (note history and impact of this capability above) and paired with quartz are enormously reliable.

If you're still interested, I can point you in a better direction - one that has a glimmer of fact-based hope!

What you *could * argue is Sistem51 assembly technology (hermetically sealed case, laser regulated, ARCAP materials, etc) gets us closer to quartz-like costs and reliability but ... yeah that wouldn't even work because there's no way a mechanical movement is going to be used as timer for, say, military munitions.

So, ultimately, when we consider things like history and facts, your theory has zero merits. I guess we've both learned something here today.


----------



## RPF

GrussGott said:


> And a quartz movement was so so simple, and so cheap that it almost entirely killed the mechanical watch industry starting with Seiko's Astron 35SQ in 1969 which is so famous it's an IEEE milestone. Quartz movements were so successful they were plopped into EVERYTHING: kitchen timers, military equipment like bombs, appliances, you name it. The Swiss got in the game too with Rolex, Patek, Omega, IWC, and others developing the Beta 21, in watches like the Rolex Oysterquartz calibre 5100, the Patek Cercle d'Or, and the Omega electroquartz.
> 
> Anyway, I guess you haven't heard of the Quartz Crisis but it was totally a thing. I don't blame you for not knowing, it's hard to see today.
> 
> So dude: wrong direction with your mechanical-movements-are-simple arguments ... as for an IC, yes I do know how hard it is to produce them as I used to design them and live and work in silicon valley. See, once designed, they can be (and are) mass produced for fractions of a cent (note history and impact of this capability above) and paired with quartz are enormously reliable.
> 
> If you're still interested, I can point you in a better direction - one that has a glimmer of fact-based hope!
> 
> What you *could * argue is Sistem51 assembly technology (hermetically sealed case, laser regulated, ARCAP materials, etc) gets us closer to quartz-like costs and reliability but ... yeah that wouldn't even work because there's no way a mechanical movement is going to be used as timer for, say, military munitions.
> 
> So, ultimately, when we consider things like history and facts, your theory has zero merits. I guess we've both learned something here today.


The sistem 51 has plastic pallets so they are not reliable at all.


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> And a quartz movement was so so simple, and so cheap that it almost entirely killed the mechanical watch industry starting with Seiko's Astron 35SQ in 1969 which is so famous it's an IEEE milestone. Quartz movements were so successful they were plopped into EVERYTHING: kitchen timers, military equipment like bombs, appliances, you name it. The Swiss got in the game too with Rolex, Patek, Omega, IWC, and others developing the Beta 21, in watches like the Rolex Oysterquartz calibre 5100, the Patek Cercle d'Or, and the Omega electroquartz.
> 
> Anyway, I guess you haven't heard of the Quartz Crisis but it was totally a thing. I don't blame you for not knowing, it's hard to see today.
> 
> So dude: wrong direction with your mechanical-movements-are-simple arguments ... as for an IC, yes I do know how hard it is to produce them as I used to design them and live and work in silicon valley. See, once designed, they can be (and are) mass produced for fractions of a cent (note history and impact of this capability above) and paired with quartz are enormously reliable.
> 
> If you're still interested, I can point you in a better direction - one that has a glimmer of fact-based hope!
> 
> What you *could * argue is Sistem51 assembly technology (hermetically sealed case, laser regulated, ARCAP materials, etc) gets us closer to quartz-like costs and reliability but ... yeah that wouldn't even work because there's no way a mechanical movement is going to be used as timer for, say, military munitions.
> 
> So, ultimately, when we consider things like history and facts, your theory has zero merits. I guess we've both learned something here today.


Again, you're fixating on cheap and ubiquitous, but neither of these imply that the underlying design of a quartz watch is simple. As you said yourself, it was an IEEE milestone. The development costs were substantial, and it was a groundbreaking development, and the cost of the Seiko Astron 35SQ at $1250 in 1969 reflects that fact. As a point of comparison, a two tone Datejust was $360 in 1970. Just because it is now cheaply available when produced in substantial quantities does not change the fact that creating a quartz watch ab initio is a substantial undertaking, whereas a mechanical watch can be produced by a single skilled watchmaker.


----------



## mleok

Duplicate post.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> Again, you're fixating on cheap and ubiquitous, but neither of these imply that the underlying design of a quartz watch is simple. As you said yourself, it was an IEEE milestone. The development costs were substantial, and it was a groundbreaking development, and the cost of the Seiko Astron 35SQ at $1250 in 1969 reflects that fact. As a point of comparison, a two tone Datejust was $360 in 1970. Just because it is now cheaply available when produced in substantial quantities does not change the fact that creating a quartz watch ab initio is a substantial undertaking, whereas a mechanical watch can be produced by a single skilled watchmaker.


Props for using ab initio . All I got


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> A mechanical watch at its essence is a pretty simple device, it has a mainspring to store energy, an escapement to prevent all that energy from being released too quickly, and a mechanical oscillator to regulate the rate of the escapement, and gears are used to drive hands that indicate the time. There is an elegance and efficiency to its design that is hardly Rube Goldberg in any reasonable sense. The essential timekeeping features can be realized using surprisingly few components, as this plastic windup clock toy demonstrates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast, in a quartz watch, you have a battery which excites a piezoelectric oscillator, and the electrical impulses from these are counted using a microelectronic controller, and this drives electrical signals that change the polarization of liquid crystal in order to indicate the time.
> 
> Just because the mechanical watch is more expensive to produce, does not mean that it is a more complicated device. On the contrary, just try to produce a single digital quartz watch from scratch and you'll see just how much of a production it actually is.


In all fairness, above you compared a _clock_ to a _watch_. Ignoring size, the toy clock shown couldn't possibly function as a watch because its escapement is a pendulum which of course won't work in a watch. Once you recognize the necessity of a balance wheel, hairspring, pallet fork, and escape wheel, suddenly making a mechanical watch from scratch becomes a more daunting proposition. Heck, it's so difficult to make a good hairspring that very few watch _manufacturers_ make their own - most relying on suppliers who specialize in making them (hey, kinda like ICs eh?).

Yes, the technology to make ICs is beyond the capability of most watch makers. But so is the technology of making stainless steel, spring steel, pivot jewels, etc., from the various ores, metals, and materials that would be used to make them. And what of the mills, lathes, carbide or HSS cutters, etc. that are needed to fashion those metals into gears, hands, barrels, springs, etc.

Reality is that we live in the 21st century and the ready and cheap availability of technology and technically-produced materials makes lots of things easy that were once difficult or impossible. How much of the modern availability of technology do we ignore when having this silly discussion?


----------



## mleok

BrianBinFL said:


> In all fairness, above you compared a _clock_ to a _watch_. Ignoring size, the toy clock shown couldn't possibly function as a watch because its escapement is a pendulum which of course won't work in a watch. Once you recognize the necessity of a balance wheel, hairspring, pallet fork, and escape wheel, suddenly making a mechanical watch from scratch becomes a more daunting proposition. Heck, it's so difficult to make a good hairspring that very few watch _manufacturers_ make their own - most relying on suppliers who specialize in making them (hey, kinda like ICs eh?).
> 
> Yes, the technology to make ICs is beyond the capability of most watch makers. But so is the technology of making stainless steel, spring steel, pivot jewels, etc., from the various ores, metals, and materials that would be used to make them. And what of the mills, lathes, carbide or HSS cutters, etc. that are needed to fashion those metals into gears, hands, barrels, springs, etc.
> 
> Reality is that we live in the 21st century and the ready and cheap availability of technology and technically-produced materials makes lots of things easy that were once difficult or impossible. How much of the modern availability of technology do we ignore when having this silly discussion?


The fundamental principles underlying the toy mechanical clock and a mechanical watch are the same, the only difference is one needs a hairspring and balance wheel instead of the pendulum to regulate the escapement.

Mechanical watches predated the Industrial Age, so it's clearly possible to produce them without relying on substantial post-industrial infrastructure. The same cannot be said of quartz watches.


----------



## mleok

At the end of the day, there was a time when mechanical watches served an essential timekeeping function, and were not overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated. In contrast, even at its inception, the Spring Drive did not serve a fundamental need, and did not achieve any improvement over the state of the art in timekeeping at the time.


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> The fundamental principles underlying the toy mechanical clock and a mechanical watch are the same, the only difference is one needs a hairspring and balance wheel instead of the pendulum to regulate the escapement.


Lol. Yes, if you ignore the single most difficult aspect of making a portable timepiece that may be operated in any position, the principles of the toy mechanical clock and a watch are the same. Is that REALLY your argument?



mleok said:


> Mechanical watches predated the Industrial Age, so it's clearly possible to produce them without relying on substantial post-industrial infrastructure. The same cannot be said of quartz watches.


Just because you can make something without relying on substantial post-industrial infrastructure does not make it easy. Is it really your point that anything that could be done in pre-industrial times is inherently easy?

Seriously?


----------



## BrianBinFL

Many years ago I was going to be attending a get-together with a friend and a group of people he knew well, but many that I did not know at all. Generally a good group of guys but he warned me about one guy in the group whom we'll call Murphy (because that's his name).

My friend warned me that Murphy was the type who would argue to the end of the Earth over the tiniest of points. He was incapable of seeing any point of view but his own and was absolutely dogmatic that others come around to his viewpoint. My friend knows that I am the type that likes to share knowledge and if someone says something that is either outright incorrect, or perhaps could benefit from a nuanced clarification, I will offer my opinion on the matter. My friend warned that with Murphy this would accomplish nothing but to initiate an hours-long conversation that could not possibly ever be resolved. My friend had learned over the years that if Murphy said something with which you disagreed the absolute best response was "Really? I didn't know that."

So we're all at a restaurant and of course I end up seated across from Murphy. I've forgotten my friend's advice by this time - Murphy seems like a nice enough guy and we're chatting about all sorts of things that we both find interesting. At some point he makes some sort of comment about some nuance of U.S. firearms law (a topic on which I have served as an expert in federal court cases) and I replied, in a non-argumentative sort of way, "oh, actually, _(fine point of clarification here)_". Oops.

Murphy immediately shifts into dogmatic mode. Proceeds to explain in no uncertain terms why he's right and I'm wrong. By the end of his first sentence my friend's prior advice has come back to the fore of my mind. I wait for him to pause at the end of a sentence and I reply "Really? I didn't know that."

Magic. Murphy is satisfied. Topic closed. We move on to other topics and I don't make that mistake for the rest of the night, avoiding further calamities.



mleok said:


> At the end of the day, there was a time when mechanical watches served an essential timekeeping function, and were not overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated. In contrast, even at its inception, the Spring Drive did not serve a fundamental need, and did not achieve any improvement over the state of the art in timekeeping at the time.


Really? I didn't know that. ;-)


----------



## GrussGott

BrianBinFL said:


> Proceeds to explain in no uncertain terms why he's right and I'm wrong ... I reply "Really? I didn't know that."
> Magic. Murphy is satisfied. Topic closed.


dang, I wish I had your tolerance for suffering fools.



mleok said:


> Mechanical watches predated the Industrial Age, so *it's clearly possible to produce them without relying on substantial post-industrial infrastructure. The same cannot be said of quartz watches.*


Just so you don't mislead others with your non-fact-based misinformation claptrap -

*A quartz watch is an incredibly simple device* - to create the time-keeping mechanism, here's what you need:

* silicon dioxide (basically a rock which you can find in sand),
* wire,
* small power source (add a potato or lemon to your supplies)

*The Science!*
Just like a magnet (or magnetic rock) can induce a current in wire or current in wire creates a magnetic field, a similar property is true of quartz: compress the rock and it generates electricity, add electricity to the rock and it vibrates! Specifically the rock will vibrate 32,768 times per second. Get it? _PER SECOND!_ A frickin rock is a reliable clock if you just add electricity! So build a circuit to count the vibrations and you have a simple, incredibly accurate watch that ticks every second.

*Thus it's not "post industrial infrastructure" that prevented people from making quartz watches, it was understanding applied electricity* (which Volta and Faraday pioneered in the early 1800s), and the materials science that goes along with it. microchips just happen to be _the current _easiest and cheapest way to harvest the science into consumer products, but they're certainly not required and can easily be replaced.

*Further, the only reason we use quartz is because* it's readily found (it's sand!), but the better time-keeper is radioactive decay, i.e., Cesium 133 ... and the ONLY dude I know of that's actually created an honest to goodness true atomic wristwatch is John Patterson of Bathys - what a crazy basstard!











Finally, we should all remember that our entire modern lives are enabled by quartz oscillators keeping time in billions of devices whose output we rely on daily.

Mechanical watches are just an artful, romantic, anachronism we enjoy ...


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> *A quartz watch is an incredibly simple device* - to create the time-keeping mechanism, here's what you need:
> 
> * silicon dioxide (basically a rock which you can find in sand),
> * wire,
> * small power source (add a potato or lemon to your supplies)


Now you're just being ridiculous, please go ahead and build a device that can keep and display the time using just the items you mentioned above. You're honestly better off saying that anything more complicated than a sundial or a water clock is a Rube Goldberg device.


----------



## GrussGott

mleok said:


> Now you're just being ridiculous, please go ahead and build a device that can keep and display the time using just the items you mentioned above. You're honestly better off saying that anything more complicated than a sundial or a water clock is a Rube Goldberg device.


Our "post-industrial infrastructure" could mass produce anything so why quartz oscillators versus mechanical watches? Because electrical oscillators are simpler and easier devices! Fewer, easier to produce parts. Why? Because fundamental forces are simpler and more powerful than mechanical forces.

I get it: you don't understand science so applied science seems amazing and magical - Well, it is!

Take the time to learn about science, and this won't seem so magical to you.


----------



## Premise

GrussGott said:


> Our "post-industrial infrastructure" could mass produce anything so why quartz oscillators versus mechanical watches? Because electrical oscillators are simpler and easier devices! Fewer, easier to produce parts. Why? Because fundamental forces are simpler and more powerful than mechanical forces.
> 
> I get it: you don't understand science so applied science seems amazing and magical - Well, it is!
> 
> Take the time to learn about science, and this won't seem so magical to you.


No, mechanical movements can be stamped nearly as cheap, we see examples all the time. The problem is accuracy and useable lifespan of such a watch. A quartz watch is still very intricate, but it's much more repeatable. The truth is it takes a lot more money and detail to make a mechanical repeatably accurate. If the name of the game is accuracy, no matter the price the quartz is more consistently accurate.


----------



## manofrolex

mleok said:


> At the end of the day, there was a time when mechanical watches served an essential timekeeping function, and were not overly complicated for the sake of being overly complicated. In contrast, even at its inception, the Spring Drive did not serve a fundamental need, and did not achieve any improvement over the state of the art in timekeeping at the time.


True but that doesn't mean the SD isn't cool. Which to me is all that matters when combined w a great packaging. The SD in my book is cool, it is different maybe for the sake of being different but cool nonetheless and for that I am happy


----------



## BrianBinFL

jmanlay said:


> True but that doesn't mean the SD isn't cool. Which to me is all that matters when combined w a great packaging. The SD in my book is cool, it is different maybe for the sake of being different but cool nonetheless and for that I am happy


I would offer that creating a hybrid electro-mechanical watch that has no consumable battery or capacitor is a meritorious advancement contained within the Spring Drive movement. I would also offer that creating a timepiece that delivers time at an infinite resolution, with no discrete steps, is an awesome achievement, mechanically and conceptually, as well as providing the unmatched, flawless seconds hand.


----------



## mleok

GrussGott said:


> Our "post-industrial infrastructure" could mass produce anything so why quartz oscillators versus mechanical watches? Because electrical oscillators are simpler and easier devices! Fewer, easier to produce parts. Why? Because fundamental forces are simpler and more powerful than mechanical forces.
> 
> I get it: you don't understand science so applied science seems amazing and magical - Well, it is!
> 
> Take the time to learn about science, and this won't seem so magical to you.


I am a mathematics professor with an engineering PhD. It is precisely because I understand the science that I appreciate what an accomplishment the quartz watch was. As Newton said, we see further because we stood on the shoulders of giants. Just because it's routine today, does not mean that it is a trivial accomplishment, simple, or easy.

Maybe it's because you don't understand mechanics that the mechanical watch movement seems so complicated to you?


----------



## manofrolex

BrianBinFL said:


> I would offer that creating a hybrid electro-mechanical watch that has no consumable battery or capacitor is a meritorious advancement contained within the Spring Drive movement. I would also offer that creating a timepiece that delivers time at an infinite resolution, with no discrete steps, is an awesome achievement, mechanically and conceptually, as well as providing the unmatched, flawless seconds hand.


Indeed an awesome achievement that I enjoy weekly


----------



## mleok

jmanlay said:


> True but that doesn't mean the SD isn't cool. Which to me is all that matters when combined w a great packaging. The SD in my book is cool, it is different maybe for the sake of being different but cool nonetheless and for that I am happy


I agree the Spring Drive is cool. But for me, it's cool precisely because it's such a Rube Goldberg machine, the same way that I find this video by OK Go to be insanely cool.


----------



## mleok

BrianBinFL said:


> Lol. Yes, if you ignore the single most difficult aspect of making a portable timepiece that may be operated in any position, the principles of the toy mechanical clock and a watch are the same. Is that REALLY your argument?
> 
> Just because you can make something without relying on substantial post-industrial infrastructure does not make it easy. Is it really your point that anything that could be done in pre-industrial times is inherently easy?
> 
> Seriously?


A hairspring and balance wheel isn't that much more complicated than a pendulum, they're both mechanical oscillators.

I'm not saying that something that can be made without substantial post-industrial infrastructure is inherently easy, I am saying that something that can only be made with post-industrial infrastructure is more complicated.


----------



## jimiwilli

heineken4u said:


> You can buy an SBGE201 for a lot less than 50% of the price of a GMT master ii (msrp) , but that's not point. Value retention is what someone spoke about.
> 
> If I purchased a brand new Rolex from AD at msrp, and I'm able to then wear it for a few months/years etc., and if for some unknown reason wanted to sell my Rolex, I would be breaking even, perhaps even come out ahead.
> 
> Conversely. I can buy an SBGE201 right now for 20% discount plus no tax off msrp from an AD. The second I wear this watch, the value has fallen even below then this "20% percent discounted price" I paid.
> 
> So when speaking of value retention, well, GS doesn't have much to offer. There is a reason why you can get GS brand new at heavily discounted. They don't hold value.
> 
> The number one thing GS fans like to regurgitate is... The finishing is second to none. There are many more factors to consider than "finishing" when deciding on a watch. For example, when your GS spring drive needs serving, how's GS customer service? I've heard nothing but horrible experiences in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


Agreed, but I think I also read that if you're buying a Rolex used (Which is what you have to do in probably half the country), you are going to pay well over MSRP. That overage in MSRP is not guaranteed to be there, and you're paying more than the watch is new. So the whole Rolex and Value argument only applies if you're buying new. Used, it can be a crap shoot. And that really only goes for certain models, I've seen Explorer ones selling as low as $5K, which is still not terrible, but certainly not the investment people claim.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thetony007

-


----------



## thetony007

heineken4u said:


> I feel the same way as you David. I was going to purchase a sbge201 but than realized half that money will be lost once I wear it. I also don't like the bracelets or their clasps. And guess what watch I ended up getting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


gotta be honest, 
even before the image showed up, I smelled this one a mile away


----------



## BrianBinFL

mleok said:


> The Skydweller has an innovative setting mechanism, and a very elegantly implemented annual calendar complication. They've tightened their accuracy standard, and continued to introduce new movements like the 32xx line, so it seems ridiculous to claim that they don't worry about accuracy or innovation.


Sorry to go off topic, but since this thread has died down a bit, thanks for sharing some details of the Skydweller. I hadn't looked at that model before and now that I have learned a bit about it I really like it. I can't "like" the post I'm quoting because I disagree with you about the Spring Drive, but thumbs up for the info on the Skydweller. |>


----------



## Homo Sapien X

GMT-man said:


> I never understood this "investment" part in buying watches. I do not invest in a dining room table, I do not invest in a laptop, I do not invest in a lawn mower. Not even a car. Why should I invest in a watch? I just keep buying them if I like them.


This is a statement every watch lover should remember. I fully agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Time Dilation

Alysandir said:


> 2) you do understand that the greatest indicator for the middle class shrinking is that more middle class are transitioning to the upper class than are being backfilled by those transitioning from lower to middle, right?
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


You do realize that 's absolute nonsense, don't you. Alysandir?


----------



## GrussGott

GMT-man said:


> I never understood this "investment" part in buying watches. I do not invest in a dining room table, I do not invest in a laptop, I do not invest in a lawn mower. Not even a car. Why should I invest in a watch? I just keep buying them if I like them.
> 
> 
> **** Sapien X said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a statement every watch lover should remember. I fully agreed.
Click to expand...

A watch doesn't produce wealth, thus a watch can't be an investment.

You can speculate on used watch prices, i.e., gamble, but speculating is not investing.


----------



## Homo Sapien X

GrussGott said:


> A watch doesn't produce wealth, thus a watch can't be an investment.
> 
> You can speculate on used watch prices, i.e., gamble, but speculating is not investing.


Wise ! 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whineboy

GrussGott said:


> A watch doesn't produce wealth, thus a watch can't be an investment.
> 
> You can speculate on used watch prices, i.e., gamble, but speculating is not investing.


Collectibles most certainly can be investments. Think of classic cars. Or a piece of artwork.

If you are saying an investment must generate income while held, that is not so - think of zero-coupon bonds.

whineboy

All mechanical, all the time


----------



## BrianBinFL

GrussGott said:


> A watch doesn't produce wealth, thus a watch can't be an investment.
> 
> You can speculate on used watch prices, i.e., gamble, but speculating is not investing.


*investment* [ in-vest-muh nt ]
noun
the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, *or appreciation in value*.


----------



## GrussGott

BrianBinFL said:


> *investment* [ in-vest-muh nt ]
> noun
> the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, *or appreciation in value*.


Do you want to discuss word definitions or principles? Language debates are fundamentally ridiculous since word definitions are simply group agreements anyway, so if that was your intention, i'm out on that useless "debate".

If you want to discuss useful things like principles:

** an investment is *something that can produce or enable wealth creation: land, bonds, equities, building, etc. All of these things create or enable economic expansion.

** Speculation is* betting: Watches, like gold bars, art, or betting on horse racing - it's speculating that the price of the used watch will rise, the art price will rise, the horse will win, or the price of gold will rise. Speculating can work, but it's not investing, it's speculating.

And you can speculate on something that could be an investment over a longer term, like, say, equities or house prices. So the strategic difference there would be:

(1.) Investing: I'm going to buy, in cash or short term low interest loans, houses in Orange country and hold them at least 10 years because the OC a growing economy and people need a place to live and when they're close to their jobs that's more efficient therefore I'm increasing productivity and thus creating wealth. If it takes 15 years I'm cool, houses are paid for and I'm investing regionally.

(2.) Speculating: I'm going to speculate that OC housing is going to increase in 2 years so that I can get in and out without getting overwhelmed by transaction / fiancing costs, but if I'm wrong I may not be able to sustain the payments and/or need the cash for something else.

With a watch, it's an end-use consumer product that can do nothing other than sit on someone's wrist. It cannot increase productivity and you can only speculate it's used price might rise.

A watch has no other use than luxury.

A watch cannot create any value.

A watch is not an investment.


----------



## manofrolex

I am currently investing in my wrist presence










That is what this hobby is all about for me . Wouldn't give a darn if in 48 years my GS will be worth + x y or z or - x y z


----------



## Premise

Time Dilation said:


> You do realize that 's absolute nonsense, don't you. Alysandir?


It may be nonsense but in my experience everyone I know except for one makes more than they did 3-5 years ago. I doubled my income in the last 6 months.


----------



## BrianBinFL

GrussGott said:


> Do you want to discuss word definitions or principles? Language debates are fundamentally ridiculous since word definitions are simply group agreements anyway, so if that was your intention, i'm out on that useless "debate".
> 
> If you want to discuss useful things like principles:
> 
> ** an investment is *something that can produce or enable wealth creation: land, bonds, equities, building, etc. All of these things create or enable economic expansion.
> 
> ** Speculation is* betting: Watches, like gold bars, art, or betting on horse racing - it's speculating that the price of the used watch will rise, the art price will rise, the horse will win, or the price of gold will rise. Speculating can work, but it's not investing, it's speculating.
> 
> And you can speculate on something that could be an investment over a longer term, like, say, equities or house prices. So the strategic difference there would be:
> 
> (1.) Investing: I'm going to buy, in cash or short term low interest loans, houses in Orange country and hold them at least 10 years because the OC a growing economy and people need a place to live and when they're close to their jobs that's more efficient therefore I'm increasing productivity and thus creating wealth. If it takes 15 years I'm cool, houses are paid for and I'm investing regionally.
> 
> (2.) Speculating: I'm going to speculate that OC housing is going to increase in 2 years so that I can get in and out without getting overwhelmed by transaction / fiancing costs, but if I'm wrong I may not be able to sustain the payments and/or need the cash for something else.
> 
> With a watch, it's an end-use consumer product that can do nothing other than sit on someone's wrist. It cannot increase productivity and you can only speculate it's used price might rise.
> 
> A watch has no other use than luxury.
> 
> A watch cannot create any value.
> 
> A watch is not an investment.


Really? I didn't know that.


----------



## Elarock

yngrshr said:


> Has GS really moved prices up that much? We are seeing some new models at a higher price range, but the core group doesn't seem to have dramatically increased.
> 
> I'll worry more when I see that change.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed here. The grumbling about GS prices is almost always in relation to Rolex and not on its own merits. Most people agree that GS finishing, movements etc. are on par, but people expect and even demand a price discount because it's not a Rolex. Grand Seiko shouldn't be expected to price their watches based on another companies prices.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GrussGott

BrianBinFL said:


> Really? I didn't know that.


Ha well here's the bottom line:

if someone wants to invest in watches, I suggest they buy, say, LVMH stock or bonds ... and for that to be a good investment, lots of people need to buy LVMH's end-use products (for whatever reason).

If those watch buyers want to say they're "investing", as an equity holder I'm cool with that.


----------



## BrianBinFL

GrussGott said:


> Ha well here's the bottom line:
> 
> if someone wants to invest in watches, I suggest they buy, say, LVMH stocks or bonds ... and for that to be a good investment, lots of people need to buy LVMH's end-use products (for whatever reason).
> 
> If those watch buyers want to say they're "investing", as an equity holder I'm cool with that.


Well, to be clear, I don't personally get the whole idea of buying a watch with "investment potential" as one of the factors contributing to the purchase decision. I buy watches because I like them. I pay what they cost if the happiness the watch will bring me exceeds the happiness that I could get if I spent that same amount of money on something else. I don't care if the watch is worth anything on resale or not. But that's me. If others are happier thinking of their watches as an investment, or it helps them sell it to the wife, or whatever, then that's cool too.

I don't think it is a horrible misuse of the word "investment". There are many ways to interpret that word, each valid in some context.


----------



## GrussGott

BrianBinFL said:


> I don't think it is a horrible misuse of the word "investment". There are many ways to interpret that word, each valid in some context.


It's not a misuse of the word investing, it's just not as clear as when one differentiates between:

* "investing" - long term wealth creation,
* "speculating" - _hoping_ fashion trends increase demand and therefore price,
* "gambling" - short term _hope _on a behavioral outcome, and
* "consumption" - acquiring a thing to enjoy with no plan on a return

Similar things are not the same, and hope is never a good investing strategy.

As an equities investor, i'm all for people buying the end-use products of companies I own shares of like LVMH or Seiko.

but then, I also never hodl bitcoin.


----------



## blowlamp

GrussGott said:


> It's not a misuse of the word investing, it's just not as clear as when one differentiates between:
> 
> * "investing" - long term wealth creation,
> * "speculating" - _hoping_ fashion trends increase demand and therefore price,
> * "gambling" - short term _hope _on a behavioral outcome, and
> * "consumption" - acquiring a thing to enjoy with no plan on a return
> 
> Similar things are not the same, and hope is never a good investing strategy.
> 
> As an equities investor, i'm all for people buying the end-use products of companies I own shares of like LVMH or Seiko.
> 
> but then,* I also never hodl bitcoin*.


Hodling bitcoin is a rather good strategy in my experience.


----------



## blowlamp

Double Post.


----------



## GrussGott

blowlamp said:


> Hodling bitcoin is a rather good strategy in my experience.


My college roommate reliably made rent every month playing blackjack at a casino. Speculation and gambling can work ... but there's a reason why Warren Buffet is possibly the best investor ever and thinks bitcoin is a crock of shiit: [bitcoin is] "a gambling device" with "a lot of fraud connected to it" and "an asset that creates nothing" ...

... all of which can be said of used watch "investing".

And every good trade needs a sucker on the other side; when you're buying assets that create nothing like bitcoin and watches, if you're not sure exactly who the sucker is, then it's you.


----------



## blowlamp

GrussGott said:


> My college roommate reliably made rent every month playing blackjack at a casino. Speculation and gambling can work ... but there's a reason why Warren Buffet is possibly the best investor ever and thinks bitcoin is a crock of shiit: [bitcoin is] "a gambling device" with "a lot of fraud connected to it" and "an asset that creates nothing" ...
> 
> ... all of which can be said of used watch "investing".
> 
> And every good trade needs a sucker on the other side; when you're buying assets that create nothing like bitcoin and watches, if you're not sure exactly who the sucker is, then it's you.


If you're not aware of the strengths and capabilities of bitcoin, then you shouldn't be dismissive of it.


----------



## GrussGott

blowlamp said:


> If you're not aware of the strengths and capabilities of bitcoin, then you shouldn't be dismissive of it.


Sure, but in my defense i'm only dismissing Bitcoin because Bitcoin has no strengths and capabilities.

That said, sounds like Buffet's all in:


----------



## blowlamp

GrussGott said:


> Sure, but in my defense i'm only dismissing Bitcoin because Bitcoin has no strengths and capabilities.
> 
> That said, sounds like Buffet's all in:


You have no defence - you seem to know nothing about bitcoin. If you did, then you wouldn't be citing the ramblings of an old dinosaur - who also doesn't understand bitcoin - to back up your notion of its uselessness.

Andreas Antonopoulos is reliable if you want facts, in preference to opinion, about bitcoin.


----------



## mleok

blowlamp said:


> You have no defence - you seem to know nothing about bitcoin. If you did, then you wouldn't be citing the ramblings of an old dinosaur - who also doesn't understand bitcoin - to back up your notion of its uselessness.
> 
> Andreas Antonopoulos is reliable if you want facts, in preference to opinion, about bitcoin.


In fairness, I'm not sure citing a Bitcoin advocate and consultant, provides any additional objectivity to the discussion.


----------



## blowlamp

mleok said:


> In fairness, I'm not sure citing a Bitcoin advocate and consultant, provides any additional objectivity to the discussion.


Antonopoulos doesn't 'sell' bitcoin, he explains how bitcoin works and how it helps people thoughout the world to send and receive payment where they may otherwise not be able to.

Bitcoin is not a get rich quick scheme. It has a very serious purpose and that becomes clear to those with an open mind and take the time to explore it.


----------



## GrussGott

blowlamp said:


> You have no defence - you seem to know nothing about bitcoin.


To be fair, that's only because it's not me that needs defending, it's bitcoin, but crypto in general ... and unfortunately there's not much of a future there, here's why:

*(1.) Crypto use is transaction-only* unlike gold which can be sold for industrial use at a minimum - this means Crypto is super vulnerable to bubbles, collapse, and tears .... you may be aware this is exactly what's happened so far.

*(2.) Crypto's verification process uses tons of energy* which means it's stupidly inefficient compared to a central bank

*(3.) Crypto's benefits (decentralization, anonymous transactions) make it very attractive for illegal pursuits* like money laundering, illegal drug sales, smuggling, arms trading, and terrorism. You also might have noticed people like the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the SEC, the FBI, and DHS have gotten very interested in it, and not in the good way.

*(4.) Crypto has been around for a decade - A DECADE! Do you see any revolutions after 10 years?* Compare that to the internet, smart phones, or even smart watches - in a decade all of those things made insane amounts of progress, but crypto was a flash and a fade out into the current "crypto winter" (CW)

*(5.) Crypto's best case to emerge from CW, is that it performs like the dotcom boom* (that I was at ground zero for) ... Crypto's best case is that like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, etc rose from the dotcom ashes, so does Crypto ... and for that to happen, people would need to trust it - like they came to trust online banking and retail. Who's the bitcoin company that'll rise to become a trusted concierge? In the case of the internet, all companies jumped in because it lowered their costs to start - how does Crypto lower anyone's costs? Which companies have a forcing function to jump in?

So, as a dotom veteran, and a guy who lives and works in silicon valley I sympathize with you. I can see some places where crypto could work, and many more where blockchain would be awesome (like healthcare), but at this point, I see no forcing function that gets Crypto out of CW.

Crypto will always be the currency of the future (and likely be replaced by upcoming technology ;-)).

I'm sorry for you and your wallet.


----------



## blowlamp

GrussGott said:


> To be fair, that's only because it's not me that needs defending, it's bitcoin, but crypto in general ... and unfortunately there's not much of a future there, here's why:
> 
> *(1.) Crypto use is transaction-only* unlike gold which can be sold for industrial use at a minimum - this means Crypto is super vulnerable to bubbles, collapse, and tears .... you may be aware this is exactly what's happened so far.
> 
> *(2.) Crypto's verification process uses tons of energy* which means it's stupidly inefficient compared to a central bank
> 
> *(3.) Crypto's benefits (decentralization, anonymous transactions) make it very attractive for illegal pursuits* like money laundering, illegal drug sales, smuggling, arms trading, and terrorism. You also might have noticed people like the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the SEC, the FBI, and DHS have gotten very interested in it, and not in the good way.
> 
> *(4.) Crypto has been around for a decade - A DECADE! Do you see any revolutions after 10 years?* Compare that to the internet, smart phones, or even smart watches - in a decade all of those things made insane amounts of progress, but crypto was a flash and a fade out into the current "crypto winter" (CW)
> 
> *(5.) Crypto's best case to emerge from CW, is that it performs like the dotcom boom* (that I was at ground zero for) ... Crypto's best case is that like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, etc rose from the dotcom ashes, so does Crypto ... and for that to happen, people would need to trust it - like they came to trust online banking and retail. Who's the bitcoin company that'll rise to become a trusted concierge? In the case of the internet, all companies jumped in because it lowered their costs to start - how does Crypto lower anyone's costs? Which companies have a forcing function to jump in?
> 
> So, as a dotom veteran, and a guy who lives and works in silicon valley I sympathize with you. I can see some places where crypto could work, and many more where blockchain would be awesome (like healthcare), but at this point, I see no forcing function that gets Crypto out of CW.
> 
> Crypto will always be the currency of the future (and likely be replaced by upcoming technology ;-)).
> 
> I'm sorry for you and your wallet.


Okay, thanks for the reply.


----------



## zetaplus93

How’d we get from GS to crypto?


----------



## GrussGott

zetaplus93 said:


> How'd we get from GS to crypto?


It's the currency of the future for the dwindling middle class who buy GS - here's how it works:

* Dreamers and scammers convince middle class people they can make a ton of money in crypto bro - it rings true because most people don't understand technology

* The middle class, in desperate need of a win, buy crypto and get religious about it (like you see in @blowlamps posts)

* Because it's a giant speculative bubble a very few get a crypto win, most lose

* The winners buy 3 GS watches amongst others, GS sees this and raises prices

* The Middle class, now out their crypto money, and with new higher GS prices, can't afford GS.

it's pretty simple, when you think about it


----------



## mark.wilo13

zetaplus93 said:


> How'd we get from GS to crypto?


Agreed, this thread has got a bit out of hand 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigSeikoFan

BrianBinFL said:


> I don't think it is a horrible misuse of the word "investment". There are many ways to interpret that word, each valid in some context.


Good luck convincing GrussMurphy of that!


----------



## BigSeikoFan

GrussGott said:


> It's not a misuse of the word investing, it's just not as clear as when one differentiates between:
> 
> * "investing" - long term wealth creation,
> * "speculating" - _hoping_ fashion trends increase demand and therefore price,
> * "gambling" - short term _hope _on a behavioral outcome, and
> * "consumption" - acquiring a thing to enjoy with no plan on a return
> 
> Similar things are not the same, and hope is never a good investing strategy.
> 
> As an equities investor, i'm all for people buying the end-use products of companies I own shares of like LVMH or Seiko.
> 
> but then, I also never hodl bitcoin.


See? What did I say??

You can agree with GrussMurphy's definition or you could be wrong. Either is fine with him.


----------



## GrussGott

BigSeikoFan said:


> You can agree with GrussMurphy's definition or you could be wrong. Either is fine with him.


Or be like BigSeikoFan: sit in the stands and whine about the players because ya got no skills to be in the game.


----------



## BigSeikoFan

GrussGott said:


> Or be like BigSeikoFan: sit in the stands and whine about the players because ya got no skills to be in the game.


Whatever you say, GrussMurphy. I stand by my statement.

I was a mutual fund portfolio manager and made investments for nearly 30 years; I didn't have time to be a pedant.


----------



## manofrolex

This thread needs more cowbells


----------



## GrussGott

BigSeikoFan said:


> Whatever you say, GrussMurphy. I stand by my statement.


Well, now we know the weekends is your time to drink one too many glasses and chablis and feel sorry for yourself.

But don't worry! There's still plenty of time this year to do something masculine!


----------



## blowlamp

GrussGott said:


> Well, now we know the weekends is your time to drink one too many glasses and chablis and feel sorry for yourself.
> 
> But don't worry! There's still plenty of time this year to do something masculine!


Are they all like you in Silicon Valley?


----------



## mleok

blowlamp said:


> Are they all like you in Silicon Valley?


Ignore him, he's just an Internet tough guy.


----------



## pkincy

People certainly can “invest” in gold, cryptocoin, automobiles, watches, tulip bulbs, Beanie Babies, Pet Rocks, fine wine, first editions, Hummels, HO Gauge train sets, blown glass or any number of things that produce no value but may (or may not) have some value to others in the future. Rolex owners certainly believe they are making an investment when they buy what is essentially a mass produced time keeping device with a basic and admitted inaccuracy. There is even some short term evidence that they may be correct. Long term I think all of these nonproductive “investments” have more risk than reward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

