What’s in a name?
Following on from reading James's post “Why would you wear an expensive watch?”
I’m a designer. I believe it’s always worth paying for good design and craftsmanship. Neither have to be expensive, but very often are. When I started getting more obsessed with watches in the last three years (I was just keen and interested before then, not ill), I started by looking at “homage watches” alongside the originals they were based on. I even bought a few via eBay and AliExpress but didn’t keep them long. The look was ok, but the quality wasn’t what I wanted and I personally felt unhappy wearing something that was obviously supposed to look like someone else’s IP. Until that point I’d worn the same Tudor Submariner I’d bought in 1988 24/7 nearly every day since. The only time I didn’t was when it went off for servicing. I didn’t wear a dress watch and the Sub was with me through work in the office, or outside, DIY, in the shower and even whilst snorkelling. It never let me down and I wasn’t precious about it. My wife wanted me to buy a Rolex Sub when I was 40, then for my 50th. I always refused as I couldn’t see what it would give me over my much loved Tudor. It was a good watch, well designed, well finished and a good timekeeper. The bracelet was rubbish as they all were at that time, but I didn’t know any better. Anyway, back to the point. It was made from Rolex pieces, with a Tudor movement. If you weren’t a watch geek, you (and most people did) would think it was a Rolex. When very rarely asked if it was one, I’d say it was the poor man’s version. Why? Because I saw it as being a lesser thing than the Rolex version, although it was to all intents, and the technology of the time the equal of its brother at a much better value. When I bought it, the price was still a stretch for me. Just looking at the Submariner as an example, what makes it a special watch? It’s the design. What makes it a very expensive watch? The name Rolex. Rolex make superb watches. The finish and quality is really really good. Their Submariner is an iconic design that has been copied endlessly because it’s such a good design. Excluding fakes, there must be dozens if not hundreds of derivatives ranging from trashy badly made homages (photo copies without the trademark) at few dollars, through micro brands with exceptional levels of quality and finishing for a few hundred dollars. These are usually pretty close homages but with minor tweaks to prevent them being out and out copies, through to major brands that are clearly influenced by the Sub, that cost substantially more than the original Rolex… albeit you can actually buy them. So, my rambling point is that you can get a beautiful, well designed, well finished Submariner inspired watch for a few hundred dollars and up if you don’t care about it saying Rolex on the dial. There are so many watches out there worthy of our love and our money. Rolex is definitely one of them, but it’s possibly the brand name on the dial that may influence the final choice rather than the design and manufacturing. What if all watches were unbranded and you chose your timepiece on the basis of its value to quality alone? What a world that would be. Oh. And finally… I am at age 60 finally on a waitlist for a Rolex no date from my local AD, so maybe after all, the name makes a difference to me too although, I do love the design and the quality of the product. There’s nothing quite like the Rolex Submariner. 😂
All the gear and no idea. I love watches but am pretty ignorant on details. Not that it matters. It’s just fun looking at, acquiring and wearing watches of all types.
Most often pretty isnt quality
Quality is something that cannot be seen in photos. Often, it cannot be fully appreciated by a quick wrist test in an AD. Sometimes it takes quite a while to truly appreciate the quality of something you already own. Such is the case, I think, with your Tudor.
This is how I feel about a couple of brands like Longines and Rolex. There are those who don’t see this and are unwilling to pay the price these manufacturers ask. That’s fine. But there are also those who take the chance and are rewarded with years of a robust, accurate and attractive timepiece. These people tend to be the repeat buyers of different models over time knowing full well the quality and value of their purchase.
This is why Rolex continues to sell at its price point despite it’s critics. Let’s face it, if Rolex were not delivering what it promised over several decades, it’s own customers would surely know. If the product in the metal did not meet expectations over these many decades, no amount of marketing or advertisement could overcome the gap between the promise and the reality.
Quality is something that cannot be seen in photos. Often, it cannot be fully appreciated by a quick wrist test in an AD. Sometimes it takes quite a while to truly appreciate the quality of something you already own. Such is the case, I think, with your Tudor.
This is how I feel about a couple of brands like Longines and Rolex. There are those who don’t see this and are unwilling to pay the price these manufacturers ask. That’s fine. But there are also those who take the chance and are rewarded with years of a robust, accurate and attractive timepiece. These people tend to be the repeat buyers of different models over time knowing full well the quality and value of their purchase.
This is why Rolex continues to sell at its price point despite it’s critics. Let’s face it, if Rolex were not delivering what it promised over several decades, it’s own customers would surely know. If the product in the metal did not meet expectations over these many decades, no amount of marketing or advertisement could overcome the gap between the promise and the reality.
I absolutely agree. Very well put if I may so. That was the point I was trying to make but not so succinctly. If you only have a small amount to commit to a watch, that’s fine. But don’t be surprised if you find the actuality doesn’t match your hopes. Thanks for the contribution.
Quality is a complex topic, and I've written many thousands of words on the subject over the years.
The simpest model of quality is to consider quality not as a single quality, but as two aspects - extrinsic quality and intrinsic quality.
Extrinsic quality is, in simplistic terms, focused on customer value. That is, what am I getting for my money? At the lowest level that will be compliance to specification; core function and features. Beyond that, we consider the user experience. Materials and 'feel' come into play here - what we might call perceived quality. At the top level we start to consider return on investment - for the money expended, how much value am I regaining?
Intrinsic quality revolves around engineering rigour. Products with high intrinsic quality not only deliver functionality, but can continue to do so for the lifetime of the product. At the basic level that involves manufacturing quality control (QC) but encompasses repairability, maintenance, spares, upgrades, etc. Intrinsic quality tends to be a investment cost to the manufacturer that may take a significant period to recoup.
The majority of Chinese homage brands tend to focus on extrinsic quality; specifically on specification. Compliance to specification is an easy comparision metric - it's ticks-in-boxes. A very common argument heard on watch forums is "Why should I spend more money on <high end brand> when <low end brand> offers me all the same specs for a lot less money?".
However, the extrinsic quality tends to taper off very quickly. Perceived quality on the Chinese homage brands tends to be significantly lower than higher-end alternatives. It generally takes more experience to compare perceived quality and it is far more difficult to assess with pictures and videos.
The ultimate RoI equation really depends more on the situation and use cases of the user. There is no one correct answer for all. A low cost watch may provide decent service for many years and thus provide high value to the owner. Conversely, a low-cost watch loses a significant (if not the majority) of its resale value the moment it is purchased, so it is effectively money wasted.
One oft-mentioned criticism of the Chinese homage brands is their lack of intrinsic quality. This is most-often manifest as poor QC, but also in the fact that these watches are rarely serviceable; they are, essentially, disposable.
Higher-end brands tend to invest far more money/effort into perceived quality. This is often a sensible business choice as (discerning?) customers are commonly prepared to pay for increased intrinsic quality.
Moreover, higher-end brands (and Rolex springs to mind here) tend to invest heavily in the intrinsic quality of their peices. This tends to lead to a reputation for reliability, robustness and longevity.
I would argue 'brand value' is a an acknowledgement by the marketplace that a company has demonstrated consistent (or ever-increasing) extrinsic and intrinsic quality over many years. I would argue neither quality aspect on its own is enough; really strong brand value is based on both. Many companies attempt to artificially manufacture 'brand value' through marketing. It's a lot less effort to keep (continually) telling you their brand has both the highest extrinsic and intrinsic quality, than it is to actually demonstrate it.
For most companies, then, their brand name becomes a sort of synonym for their intrinsic and extrinsic quality reputation. Brands can use this to leverage even higher prices from customers. (I'll gloss over the whole concept of Veblen Goods; although I would argue that to become a Veblen Good, a product must first have some reputation for extrinsic/intrinsic quality).
In conclusion: I just wrote any few more hundreds words on quality. I've suffered for my art; now you've had to as well.
Quality is something that cannot be seen in photos. Often, it cannot be fully appreciated by a quick wrist test in an AD. Sometimes it takes quite a while to truly appreciate the quality of something you already own. Such is the case, I think, with your Tudor.
This is how I feel about a couple of brands like Longines and Rolex. There are those who don’t see this and are unwilling to pay the price these manufacturers ask. That’s fine. But there are also those who take the chance and are rewarded with years of a robust, accurate and attractive timepiece. These people tend to be the repeat buyers of different models over time knowing full well the quality and value of their purchase.
This is why Rolex continues to sell at its price point despite it’s critics. Let’s face it, if Rolex were not delivering what it promised over several decades, it’s own customers would surely know. If the product in the metal did not meet expectations over these many decades, no amount of marketing or advertisement could overcome the gap between the promise and the reality.
I slightly disagree. I have nothing against Rolex watches, but the current degree of brand recognition cannot be explained through quality. It is an absolutely excellent marketing and a very consistent product management strategy that most other watch companies wouldn't have the nerve to execute.
I slightly disagree. I have nothing against Rolex watches, but the current degree of brand recognition cannot be explained through quality. It is an absolutely excellent marketing and a very consistent product management strategy that most other watch companies wouldn't have the nerve to execute.
Yet the marketing message couldn’t possibly hold up for several decades if the quality of the product disappointed it’s customers during all those years. At some point, the bluff would be called and the hand would be played out.
Yet the marketing message couldn’t possibly hold up for several decades if the quality of the product disappointed it’s customers during all those years. At some point, the bluff would be called and the hand would be played out.
Right, but at the same time there are plenty of manufacturers of excellent watches. If I would simply go for the utmost quality, I'm not sure that I would buy a Rolex. Rolex has an admirable degree of automation, but I find the production process and the company itself far more interesting than the watches they produce.
This is to a certain degree reflected here at WC: Most of the Rolex discussions seem to focus on the company, its history, and very much its sales practices.
“Most of the Rolex discussions seem to focus on the company, its history, and very much its sales practices.”
This is true and it’s a shame because the watches themselves should be the story. The sad part is that most of these comments are made by people who do not, have not and have no intention to own a Rolex.
You can be happy with a watch that looks like a Rolex and wonder why people pay so much for a Rolex. Well, I have a Sub and a Steinhart Ocean 39. I can tell you that there is a vast chasm of quality between the two. It’s up to the potential buyers to decide where their value for money/quality limit lies.
The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Rolex owners are happy with their purchase and often own multiples. Beyond all the marketing, influencers, flippers and hype, there is an end user for every Rolex produced. By and large, they are happy with their watches which makes the marketing ring true. Rolex is an easy target because it’s on top and so far ahead in the market that Omega can barely see Rolex from where it is now. Rolex hasn’t stayed on top by disappointing it’s actual customers with the watches in hand.
I have not paid more than €150 for a watch. I currently own 4 Pagani design, 1 San Martin and an Invicta Pro Diver. The Invicta and 3 of the Paganis have Seiko NH34/5 Movements, 1 Pagani has a Pearl movement and my San Martin has a Seagull movement. All are automatic. I often trawl the internet looking at watches that cost up to €500 and all I see are watches that are aesthetically very similar (Rolex Homages of one kind or another) and pretty much all of them using the same movements. Given this fact, I see absolutely no benefit in spending more cash just to get a very similar watch. To my mind the movement and the design have to justify the extra expense and that does not really happen until you start looking at watches that cost in the low thousands.