When I was young, it was a Brosnan-era Omega Seamaster. It later morphed into a Tudor Ranger (42mm 'Heritage' version), which I bought and - weirdly - got the Seamaster too within about a month of getting the Ranger, even though it was no longer a grail.
Design and Heritage for sure... I have to like the look of the thing as it's sitting there on my wrist, and I like to have a watch from a brand that's got some cachet to it. Some people don't need (or even grasp) the latter, and that's OK. We're all different with this stuff.
But those two things are important to me.
Movement... less so. You can say an automatic will run for 48hrs and is plus or minutes 20 seconds a day... and I say, righto. You can say an automatic will run for 70hrs and is plus or minutes 5 seconds a day... and I say, righto. It's not that I believe they are "the same" but I don't place one massively above the other. If it's in a watch I like the look of, with great heritage, I'm not going to sweat it over the performance of the movement and, for my purposes - which is generally just wearing the watch every now and then - it's fine.
It's an interesting dilemma. I think the answer lies in what you want out of the watch. If you're comfortable with getting it beat up, and loving every minute of it, and every scratch and dent, fabulous! Buy it, wear it. Don't think twice. But if you want a GS because it's refined, and looks nice, and you want it to be a bit of a showpiece on your wrist when you wear it... but you know you're going to trash it... I'd think twice. It won't be what you want.
Having fun on a bike each, with a great Tudor on your wrist is preferable to not having fun together, and walking around hoping people notice you're wearing a Rolex.
Based on that, what do you think the smart choice is?