Why do people care about history of a brand?

Just about all brands carry a value. Much of that value is due to their history. Collectors tend to value history or heritage as it adds interest. A watch with a story is more interesting IMO.

It is engaging to me to feel like part of a larger tradition. There is a story that's larger than you when you put on a Rolex / Omega / Seiko etc. It was here before you and will be here after. I enjoy microbrands, but I don't get that particular kind of inspiration from something new (though there is a joy in feeling like part of a new movement.)

Ultimately, it's all "awfully stupid," and yes, if you get joy from a watch, that's all that matters.

You are going to make me defend "heritage" aren't you? (No, no, no, its just an opinion on the internet, don't....)

There are plenty of one hit wonders whether it's a watch, clothes, music, ECT. It takes a special company or person to withstand decades of experience to truly understand quality and workmanship. Something a new company just cannot do.

It matters a ton. It implies staying power and recalls the importance of family name heritage - which is very important to the upper classes who happen to be the target for these heritage watch manufacturers.

There's an element of wanting to know that you're buying something that has a reputation of quality (not necessarily true, but I think people believe that older brands = staying power = quality products). There's the nostalgia of being 'part of history' (not really, but people will convince themselves of this) by buying into a heritage brand.

Gotta give it to Swiss watchmakers - they've turned storytelling of a watchbrand's history into an artform! (Genta, Zenith's attic, JCB recalling how he bought/sold Blancpain)

Watches are often an emotional purchase, so people like the emotional stories brands tell about themselves.

The primary benefit of brand recognition in clothing and accessories is tricking stupid people into thinking you have money, which unfortunately results in most people treating you better.

To me, watches are a way of expressing my identity. At its core, like @KristianG writes above, it's emotional. Diving down this rabbit hole has revealed things about myself I didn't know. I have bought some fairly expensive watches, and before I decided to sink that much money into what's essentially a Rube Goldberg machine, I had to have a serious talk with myself. Why do I do this? Why do I value these little beautiful, intricate pieces of art so much?

It's about expressing who I am. I'm not a creative at heart. I have no natural artistic talent. Watches let me express my taste, but they also tell a story. The three watchmakers that resonate the most with me are A. Lange & Söhne, Jaeger LeCoultre and Vacheron Constantin (in that order). It's no coincidence that my three most expensive purchases are from these three brands. I'll dive into this in a future post, but for now suffice is to say that I value the exceptional attention to detail, the quality (both the calibers and the finishing) and the design.

When I consider an expensive purchase (which is relative), I have the following three criteria, in order of priority:

1. Does the design speak to me?

2. How does the brand's identity resonate with my own?

3. What's the quality of the caliber?

Even on days when I'm home alone, don't leave the house and wear nothing but old rags, I will happily wear my Richard Lange if I feel like it (and this happens fairly often). Simply looking at the watch gives me a good feeling. I'm reminded of how I got to where I am (simply owning one is a privilege, in my humble opinion), who I am and quite frankly, how proud I am. The brand's heritage is a big part of that for me.

I mean . . . Just about every industry I can think of embraces heritage in stupid ways. It’s kind of human nature? We tend to attribute symbolic and social value to things that have been around a long time . . . Doesn’t always make sense but it’s what we do.

No offense, that just seems awfully stupid.

I would argue that values judgements in this given form are offensive by default.

However, answering your question, I would say that some people are interested in timekeeping devices history/horology, and probably want to have something commemorating this history.

Me waiting for this to blow up

It's about giving credit where credit's due. Is it that hard to understand?

There's a longevity calculation to brand heritage: a company who have been in business for decades (or 100+ years) are arguably likely to be around for decades more and therefore available to service my watch as and when that's an issue. Microbrands come and go or at least have not proven their longevity and where are you with that watch when it needs servicing? Not the be all and end all by any means but there is a peace of mind when buying a Longines that's not there with a Serica if the buyer is thinking about servicing 5, 10, 20 years down the line.

For me, if i love something i want to find more out about it, know it's history. Its more interesting to read about a 100+ years of history and achievements compared to "established in 2022" :P but this in no way affects my buying habits, if i like something i buy it no matter the history behind it. I owned a ridiculous amount of watches and microbrands always made up the biggest part of my collection. A lot of it is surely also simply sentimental for alot of people

It’s very difficult to articulate why heritage matters, as with all things numinous. As a lot already expressed here, if the only things that matter are practicality and specs, Pagani Design would own the biggest slice of the market pie, not Rolex. Human beings buy with emotions first and justify their purchases with reason after the fact. For some heritage gives them a warm feeling inside. It’s not all of it but it’s a significant pull.

Heritage is a deciding factor for me, all things being equal. I recently bought a delicate Cartier Tank with no seconds hands, practically no water resist, original strap already tattered for a price that could’ve gotten several brand new Seikos with better specs. I’ve bought other rectangular watches before but the Cartier Tank is the Cartier Tank, nothing else even comes close. And that’s because of the Tank’s heritage.

...or some just value deeper things like craftsmanship, historical significance, sustainability, investment potential, cultural preservation and /or personal authenticity to name a few. Nobody really needs a watch anyway.

In world of what seems like infinite choice, history is a filter to help one learn quickly what they like and dislike. It’s like a cheat code.

I like to think of it in terms of cars. A Hyundai Sonata will offer more value in terms of features and starting price compared to a Toyota Camry, but the Camry will still outsell the Sonata, even if it has less standard features and subpar specs. The numbers show that people buy the brand name most of the time, not what has the most “value.”

There’s no right or wrong answer with “heritage.” I believe that heritage is overrated at certain price points, but I don’t believe it’s negligent. For $1,000, I’d look into small independent brands/microbrands. For $3,000, though, I’d be looking into Tudors or preowned Omegas because, as another commenter said, I’d want to buy into the “lifestyle” of a luxury brand.

I will go against the grain here and agree with you, to an extent. Up to a certain price point, I don’t care about heritage. If I wear it all the time, create memories with it and love it, I’ll make up my OWN heritage story with a watch.

Anyone who needs to ask this question would never understand.

It's a matter of faith. If you don't believe the story, it all disappears and all you have is an overpriced watch.

Full disclosure: without all the associated folklore, legend, and iconic ubiquity of the F-91W, one would merely have an excellently styled bargain watch. The hokum adds to the appeal to a degree.

Because its part of the purchase justification process, even some of these brands have a legacy that they would prefer to see forgotten.

It's not unique to watches and is quite common in the cloth and fashion industry, cars, high end audio equipment, and so on.

Think this about sums it up TBH....

And for the record, if you think it's bad in the watch enthusiast arena, doesn't hold a CANDLE to the firearms/tactical world.

People will base ENTIRE collections and even enjoyment of the hobby by ONLY using/buying EXCLUSIVELY one or two brands..

cuz one special dude/team, once used it, even if the said firearm/tactic/method/stance is out classed by newer stuff.

Not too mention absolutely thunder hammering any newcomers to the hobby because they "dare" to want something else, or can't "afford" anything "better". Thereby raining all over some fellow newbie enthusiasts parade and being a basement dweller, not a balcony dweller, IFYKYK.

One of the main draws for me is history and heritage.

I ride a TRIUMPH

I drink Irish whisky

I wear Belstaff, Levi's & combat boots.

I wear Omega & Seiko.

I wouldn't ride an electric bike, drink JD, wear clothes from a knock-off trader or wear a clomage/microbrand/fashion watch either.

We like what we like & all see value in different things.

The history and accomplishments of these iconic trailblazers matters to me, because without them our world would be very different. 🤯👍🏻

Without context heritage is meaningless. Some people like having something with a sophisticated and well-respected heritage because this makes them feel and look a little important, and makes it look like they have taste. But objectively thinking, the history/heritage also shows the company's track record, good or bad, and this helps buyers make an informed decision.

Well we can agree to disagree. There are so many reasons why chosing a brand with history/heritage and so many other products with same narrative it would take me some time to list them all. All collecting is irrational/subjective so taking your approach would make it quite boring and we would all buy same (non)brands - would that still count as collecting? Basically soulless, not why I signed up for this wondefull hobby

I agree with the agree to disagree.

I love seeing everyone’s feedback but ngl, at the end of the day, I still find it almost useless.

But hey if y’all like it, go ahead!

Maybe it's because I love history but the history of a watch is as important as the watch itself, if not more. If the history is very rich then it makes for a trustworthy brand and one that is worth investing in and learning more about. Take Cartier for example, they have such a fascinating history with being the first to make the modern wristwatch. Without the history of watches brands wouldn't be able to take inspiration and create new masterpieces. But this is IMO of course. Cheers🍻

Maybe you should then ask yourself if the problem is in you? What I mean by that is you raised a topic/made a statement for discussion ( rather provocative may I add ) and after you received a somewhat not expected oppinion from vast majority you are not happy about it. This platform is built around diff oppinions and common thing is we at least respect each other even if we don't see eye to eye on topics we discuss✌️

No I AM happy! I like seeing the feedback and tho Im not eye to eye with most, I embrace the ‘live and let live’ policy for things like this :D

There's a middle ground. I'd rather purchase from "influential brand with decades of history" or "upstart microbrand with awesome design and quality" as opposed to "soulless Corp that steals designs and uses slave labour". Heritage is just an element of that

On the other hand some just care for their imaginary prestige and snobbery

A brands history is nice but isn't the deciding factor for me