Is heritage a big factor when buying a watch for you?

The past is in the past. I love the past, but it has little to do with a new watch.

The terms that immediately come to mind are "resting on one's laurels" and "what have you done lately?" It's all well and good that people who are now dead did wonderful things 50, 100, 300 years ago for a company that still exists. But it's just a story that is a differentiation for boring snobs at some point.

Allow me to say JLC Reverso, Cartier Santos, Omega Speedmaster. Two of these actually have some modern gee-whiz going on, but the clinging to the past tales sullies it for me.

Heritage is what you use when there's nothing else left.

Considering that the heritage of some brands includes (but not limited to) financial frauds, tax evasions, drug trafficking, strafing civilians and timing bomb raids and other unsavory activities, I really don't see the point in glorifying a past that is neither glorious nor deserve to be used to justify a purchase.

Agree with @DeepCmonkey its not all about heritage but it’s nice to know a watch has historical importance. Just another little + when considering a purchase. Again, if it has no heritage but the watch is cool, I’d still buy it.

Here's the thing. In today's watch market, there are watches made from parts bins in Chinese factories, with zero history/heritage behind them. Just a company putting pieces together to make a quick buck.

And then, for the same money, are watches that look similar, from brands with heritage. Brands that rose during the golden age of watches. Brands that mean something. When you have a choice between the two, why not take the one with heritage? It's certainly the one that will have better resale value in 1, 2, 5, 10 years... whenever you end up parting with it. I can absolutely guarantee you that right here and now.

YouTubers, in particular, have normalised el cheapo watches from the East for the masses, and normalised that there's no difference between heritage and no heritage but, to me at least, it's still quite a gulf.

I’m absolutely attracted by heritage and original icons. Or to put it another way - I’m really put off by things that are homages or inspired by others too directly.

I get this and agree with it mostly . . . But there’s also the reality of that dude that did something cool once 30 years ago and keeps reminding people of it. I’m sure we all work with or know someone like that who managed to make $$$ on history alone despite not doing anything really new. Heritage can be important, but I think some brands hold onto it too much or just lean on it, which I think can make the watch space in general too homogenous and honestly a bit dull . . . It’s fine to keep your icon watch but some brands really don’t move beyond that very much. And I guess I can’t blame those brands bc they’ve cultivated an audience based on safety and certain expectations.

Meanwhile a lot of the real innovation and fun is coming from micros and indies, which I guess isn’t terribly surprising since this is often the case in most industries.

The flipside to that coin is that some things come out 'right' the first time. Let's look at the Fender Stratocaster, for example. It still embodies what an electric guitar is today. Is Fender wrong to keep making them? Not on your life. Similarly, if a watch maker had a great design in the 50s, 60s, 70s, do I see a problem with them being made today? Nope, I want a piece of that action. It doesn't stop anyone trying to do something new, but to use the guitar analogy again, when competitors make Stratocaster 'style' guitars with weird headstocks or other gimmicks, I think, why not just get the real thing? Same with watches.

Heritage doesn't mean as much to me as knowing that a watchmaker will be around in the long term. I guess this is where established brands have an advantage over microbrands. If I ever need a handset, bezel, crystal etc particular to a model, then I want to know that I can find these, relatively easily.

Yeah, this is also true . . . But I stand by my pt that I think leaning in on only that and making the entire watch space only that is a bad thing. Puts blinders on folks. And when I walk into a room and see only the same watch in slight variations, I want something else to shake things up.

A factor? Sure. THE factor? Not by a long shot.

To a degree, yes. But the fact is Timex has "more" heritage than Rolex. So what does it really mean?

A more expensive marketing team haha.

I have said in a previous post what I think is heritage:

Heritage: A euphemism in the watch industry. It is mostly used to describe the ungodly high premium which is charged by certain brands for watches that were made in the past by a company they are loosely related to.

A few items on my "list" precede heritage when it comes to looking at a watch. However, heritage can be used to support various details - design, reliability and service to name a few. If two watches are the same, I'll happily spare more of my money to the one with more heritage, within reason of course.

With the hobby of watches entering my life later than other hobbies, I've often come to appreciate more aspects that accommodate the watch than the actual piece. Art can be appreciated in many facets and watches are no different.

Of course, in today's landscape, innovation and experience aren't solely found within the brands that offer the most history, but that's the beauty, and curse, of being an enthusiast. From microbrands to independents, there is plenty on offer that have quality offerings without the heritage. You don't have to be beholden to any one aspect as long as you find enjoyment.

I always want a bit of heritage, but it isn't the be all end all for me.

Very true! I heard from a watchmaker that Oris and Seiko used to do a minor amount of trolling back in the day, where they would ship or package their watches in such a way as to avoid customs duty for the South African market.

I don't consider heritage to be a critical factor in a watch purchase, however I don't think it's meaningless either. I'm much more concerned with other factors, however it's always nice to also have an interesting back story.

I do have respect for brands that have a proven track record of excellence and/or innovation, as long as it appears that their current offerings are continuing that tradition and not merely resting on their laurels.

I also feel that any heritage has to be "authentic". If some unrelated entity buys the rights to a brand name with historical significance and then tries to benefit undeservedly from that association, I see it as a warning flag.

Just one of the many factors that goes into justifying spending way too much on obsolete technology.

I feel I must quote Virginia Woolf on the heritage issue.

what are the things that middlebrows always buy? Queen Anne furniture (faked, but none the less expensive); first editions of dead writers, always the worst; pictures, or reproductions from pictures, by dead painters; houses in what is called “the Georgian style”— but never anything new, never a picture by a living painter, or a chair by a living carpenter, or books by living writers, for to buy living art requires living taste. And, as that kind of art and that kind of taste are what middlebrows call “highbrow,” “Bloomsbury,” poor middlebrow spends vast sums on sham antiques, and has to keep at it scribbling away, year in, year out, while we highbrows ring each other up, and are off for a day’s jaunt into the country. That is the worst of course of living in a set — one likes being with one’s friends.

A name doesn’t mean anything. In vintage, movement is king. Fancy name or cool looks don’t mean anything if it’s a pin-pallet running the show.

I'm a fan of heritage but I do get that it ultimately doesn't mean anything. I treat heritage as I would my knowledge of making a risotto. I don't always cook risotto but when I want to impress a hot date, risotto is my come-hither move.

Heritage is interesting but not a buying factor for me.

Instead of heritage, I like the word lineage. I like knowing that a modern watch has design history or cues from the past. A good example is the Rolex explorer. Not the same watch but has a link being inspired and produced by the same company. It's not a resurrected brand.

But the importance? Depends on all the other factors. Some things like case size is a hard stop for me. Others like bracelet design is less priority. A watch is a series of compromise, so the net balance is what matters.

It’s not so much the brand heritage I look for when purchasing a product like a watch. I’d like to know that when I’m buying something cool that there’s some substance behind it. Having an understanding of the thought process behind a product, or a company philosophy certainly adds value to the perception of the product we’re buying. Just my 2 cents. 🪙 🪙

Everyone has their reason to be attracted to a subject, including no reason at all.

If you need a thing to serve a purpose you get it and use it until it works or something better takes its place.

But if you start having several, not to solve a problem-function but out of pleasure or interest, sooner or later understanding that thing becomes, if not important, at least interesting.

I think that treating each watch as a blank slate would do a disservice to the watch and to myself. Knowing a design's provenance and its place in a timeline helps me understand it and the choices made by its designers, and that allows me to appreciate the watch even more than solely by my appreciation of its design or function.

If everyone really ignored a watch's history, and consequently its heritage, any watch on Aliexpress that clones a successful model would be considered equal to its reference model.

But it is not like that in reality. The fact that a community of people value A Lange & Sohne's Saxonia, Zenith Chronomaster Revival, Tudor Black Bay Pro (and before that the Rolex Explorer II), allows brands like Sugess to exist uniquely to clone them. The fact that the Rolex Submariner has hundreds of brands producing watches that look identical but are vastly more attainable is one of the demonstrations that history and heritage have significance.

I'm interested in history of any kind & originality. I very rarely do homages and have yet to be tempted by any microbrands. I'm not anti-micro, just haven't found anything I've fancied yet.

I like retro far more than modern stuff anyway, just taste & age. My two favourite watches are my SM300 heritage and Willard. Heritage played a big part on choosing Omega, as well as the "best" movements.

The last thing I expected for this to blow up like god damn. In all cases I thank everyone who took the time from his day to elaborate on your views on the subject. Your input has been much appreciated.

🫡❤️

Most heritage is appropriated marketing smoke, especially in the case of brands who have been bought up by conglomerates and are barely operating independently.