The idea of 'entry-level' watches doesn't jive with me

I want to share some thoughts that might echo sentiments some of you have encountered in our discussions about watch collecting. The notion of categorising our hobby into "tiers," such as moving from "entry-level" or "affordable" pieces to "luxury watches," doesn’t quite resonate with me. I believe our journey through watch collecting is deeply personal, shaped by individual choices rather than a preset path of progression.

From my perspective, the sweet spot for acquiring a watch is around the £1,000 mark. At this price point, I find that the quality and features of a watch meet my expectations without veering into the territory of diminishing returns. This isn’t to say watches beyond this price lack value, but rather, beyond this point, they don’t align with what I seek in a timepiece.

I aim to keep my investment under £5,000 when considering my entire collection. This budget is a personal cap that reflects my approach to watch collecting: it’s not about amassing wealth on the wrist but curating a selection of watches that bring joy and variety to my everyday life. This approach demystifies the idea of "ascending" through levels of collecting towards a nebulous, more "serious" tier.

By setting these parameters, I’ve been able to focus on building a collection that resonates with my style, needs, and financial comfort zone. It’s a liberating perspective that allows for the appreciation of well-crafted watches across the spectrum without the pressure of constantly reaching for the next rung on an imaginary ladder.

Reply

Agreed. Trotting out these categories is just parroting the watch companies' market segmentation strategies: all designed to persuade the consumer that they get more if they spend more. To the benefit of the companies' bottom line.

Just like cars, the low end of the range almost always has the lowest margins and the high end the highest.

So if you're a consumer who wants most of your expenditure to go on the actual thing that you're buying, the low end offers usually offers the best value. If you're a consumer that cares about brand prestige, then paying a higher price to support that prestigious brand's marketing budget makes sense.

·

Yup.

From a sheer specification or stat sheet, dollar per ounce, it is actually difficult to beat something like the Helm Vanuatu.

Downside? Stock on hand and it doesn't have that Seiko on the dial.

Getting closer to $1K US you do start to see quality of life upgrades, and better movements on top of specs, while still being in the arena of affordability to most, and/or newer watch enthusiasts.

Doesn't mean I'm not interested in higher priced stuff. Bell & Ross Type Demineur, Sinn EZM's, Tudor Pelagos FXD, etc. However I am fully aware I would be paying for the name on the dial, and not something that is spec or material wise 1,000 times better than "lower" tiers.

If you've seen the Kingdom of Heaven, to me, this scene makes sense in a way.

Image
·

As long as you are content, only thing that really matters.

·

I think the categories only bother people who are self conscious about their collections. Dont be. If you like where your collection is then who cares if others call it affordable or entry level.

Entry level is relative too. Many don’t consider a piece entry level (above affordable or mall) until you hit $3-5k a piece. Some people probably have entry level at much higher.

Dont let that bother you

Collect what you like and enjoy the pieces that you can only admire at a distance.

For me, the 222 probably isn’t reality. But I love seeing others on here wear them

·

I have a different philosophy altogether. I shop the watches first to find models that I like and want to buy. Only then do I consider price and whether I can afford it. Most of the time, I cannot so I add it to the list of “someday watches”. If I can afford it, it’s a good day for me.

·

Nerds love tier lists, stat battles and hierarchies- watch nerds are no exception. I also think it’s a silly and reductive way to look at anything, but without it how would all these watch YouTubers continue to get ad revenue and free shit

·

Agreed. As an enthusiast, I prefer to categorize “entry level” as “mainstream” simply because they are more accessible to everyone. That doesn’t mean less expensive is less desirable to me because I look for different characteristics that satisfy different collector wants . Watches satisfy my needs of art, design, fashion and engineering, so it’s not really about luxury price points all of the time because one brand usually can’t cover all of those needs. I collect from Rolex to Timex and some of my most prized are under $1,000.

·

“Tiers” of watches based on price might be an artificial construct but it doesn’t mean they’re not useful.

Consider the idea of genre in music.

It’s an entirely artificial construct designed to market tastes to certain markets, because they noticed people tended to listen to certain categories more than others. It’s all market segmentation that is fueled from the business side of things but has become endemic in the way we describe all the music we hear.

I’d argue it’s still useful as a descriptor though no one piece of music is entirely one thing. There’s constant cross-over and everyone draws the line in different places.

Similarly with watches, these price categories may seem contrived and arbitrary, but they can be a starting point to understand a given piece. At a certain point of scrutiny, all those barriers break down, but they’re only intended to be a starting point if a larger conversation.

Like music or watches - when a piece speaks to you, enjoy it. No matter how others describe it.

·

Very well said! I think the goal is to derive joy from the hobby, it’s history and connections made with a like minded community. No one should feel pressure to spend beyond their means or desire to be taken ‘seriously’ as a collector.

·

Price is a barrier not a feature. I've owned 250$ ones that I love more than 25,000$ watches.

·

I think it's relative for the most part. Especially "affordable" watches. For me, I stretched to own a Rolex (back when I had them) whereas Bill Gates could just buy Rolex. Period.

"Luxury" is an interesting one. As it depends on if you mean a luxury product, or a luxury purchase? Really anything beyond a $45 Casio is a "luxury" as they all tell the same time. Plus that $45 Casio beats the heck out of the Rolex Explorer I owned as a time keeper... It may not be a luxury product - by Western standards - but it's definitely a luxury purchase.

Just my $0.02.

·

Whatever floats your boat 🥂

Tiers are more of a guideline to ones that newly enter this hobby. A sign board to show them how to explore more and what they could try out next. But after a point, categorisation based on price or quality of finishing, technology and similar characteristics loses meaning in the eyes of a reasonably seasoned enthusiast.

·

Entry level, affordable, luxury, all just terms to aid in communication.

·
skxcellent

I think it's relative for the most part. Especially "affordable" watches. For me, I stretched to own a Rolex (back when I had them) whereas Bill Gates could just buy Rolex. Period.

"Luxury" is an interesting one. As it depends on if you mean a luxury product, or a luxury purchase? Really anything beyond a $45 Casio is a "luxury" as they all tell the same time. Plus that $45 Casio beats the heck out of the Rolex Explorer I owned as a time keeper... It may not be a luxury product - by Western standards - but it's definitely a luxury purchase.

Just my $0.02.

No he couldn’t. The Wilsdorf Foundation would never sell it to Bill, Gates that is. 😂😂😂

·

I agree 100% with every point in this post. I cringe whenever I hear someone like Teddy Baldassarre (love his work) say “entry door” or categorize any watch around $1k as a watch for some young professional slowing working their way up the financial ladder to afford something better. Some of us appreciate luxury watches but don’t personally want to climb these tiers and simply see tiers as a marketing gimmick. There are clear diminishing returns after a certain price point and the bulk of the price is because of the name on the dial. The watches I own tend to be priced around $800-$1k. I own a $2k mechanical chronograph watch but given the complication, it makes sense. I struggle to even want to purchase anything above $2k.

·
solidyetti

Yup.

From a sheer specification or stat sheet, dollar per ounce, it is actually difficult to beat something like the Helm Vanuatu.

Downside? Stock on hand and it doesn't have that Seiko on the dial.

Getting closer to $1K US you do start to see quality of life upgrades, and better movements on top of specs, while still being in the arena of affordability to most, and/or newer watch enthusiasts.

Doesn't mean I'm not interested in higher priced stuff. Bell & Ross Type Demineur, Sinn EZM's, Tudor Pelagos FXD, etc. However I am fully aware I would be paying for the name on the dial, and not something that is spec or material wise 1,000 times better than "lower" tiers.

If you've seen the Kingdom of Heaven, to me, this scene makes sense in a way.

Image

Super scene, super film 👌🏻

·

I generally buy watches with a retail price between £1000-2000, with a few just below the £1000 (CW Sealander , Hanhart Preventor9,Doxa Sub200). I believe this is where the value is particularly my Longines Spirit & HC, Hanhart 417, Sinn 556 & 104, Formex Essence, Aquis and Mido Ocean Star.

I am very satisfied with my watches at this price level and have no longing for more expensive watches with in house movements costing an arm and a leg and 6 months to get serviced.

(But I do like the Omega AT and Railmaster, perhaps I will get one of these one day).

·

I understand your position here and if that works for you fine, we all do what we do. I also agree it is personal and we all have our limits and preferences.

But don't agree with your narrative of tiers not necessary and diminishing returns for watches over 1000$/€.

The tiers are IMO just a semantics approach to label certain category, simmilar as GADA and are completely subjective unless we speak about FRP ( clear distinction of price segment - not value ). What is acceptable/budget friendly entry level to you or somebody else in our hobby ( f.i. 50-100$ Casio GShock ) is monthly or even yearly salary for 50% of world population. Your 5k collection can build a house in India or Africa, they probably don't agree with comfortable level with you too, same as you don't with people buying multiple thousands or tens of thousants watches. Who is right here?

Same goes for value, never ending debate highly connected to tier levels. To even consider outside our watch hobby that 500-1000€ watch brings best value ( whatever that means and based on what criteria and who agreed upon them ) is again completely subjective.

As you said it is subjective and should be treated as such. We all spend what we think is suitable no matter out income level and if we fall into labels and ladder traps so be it, as long as we are happy🍻