Brand you'd never buy?
220 comments
Sort by
Marc
At this point, I'll just say I'm a hater of Christopher Ward
Member since
Last active: 45 min ago
Invicta because of their stupid pricing strategy (QVC) and Hublot for their shady movement history
For me, Seiko.
Breitling. Meh.
Fun fact…I’m wearing a Christopher Ward at the moment 😬
But a watch brand I’d never buy? Panerai. Never got the appeal in photos. Checked them out when I stumbled across a AD. Still don’t get the appeal.
SKMEI or however that's spelled.
bell and ross
For me, Seiko.
Wow!
Probably Shinola.
Hublot, Richard Milles and maybe Panerai. Oh wait ... MVMT watches 😆🤣😂
Panerai. Not because I don’t think they look great, but with a 6.25” wrist there is not a model I can wear.
Tudor, Hamilton
Louis Moinet, I find one of their watches so vile, so offensive, so downright disgusting that any person that I see wearing a Louis Moinet would immediately be viewed in extremely negative terms.
Never is a long time, so who knows, but of the reputable brands probably Rolex and Tudor. Nothing against them personally, just some negatives for me and not enough appeal.
How many can I put in here...
Rolex
Hublot
Richard Mille
Jacob & Co
Modern Roger Dubuis (the early references when it was still owned by Roger were actually really well-made nice watches)
Invicta (after purchasing one that was total garbage...I know there are many fans on this list who like Invicta...I'm only putting them here based on one bad experience)
Modern Panerai (I would have said all Panerai except the early references were actually reaonably decent and they also have some fantastic early 2000s chronographs that they did in collaboration with Minerva)
Fashion Watches (i.e. Daniel Wellington and the like)
Rolex !!!
Tudor, can’t stand the snowflake hands
Especially on the chrono…
Hublot, Richard Milles and maybe Panerai. Oh wait ... MVMT watches 😆🤣😂
MVMT, that's a good one. Yeah! Never.
Can you share why CW. Would be interested to learn.
For me, I'm brand agnostic. I have exceptions I will make for products I like from brands I hate.
The brands i don't like are Rolex, Brietling, Franck Muller, Patek, Richard Mille, Most independents that copy pop design cues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGlN6mluGA
Why not studio?
It's pretty much an Ali Express Sea Gull Chrono, with a bit more pizazz. Nothing wrong with it, but I see it for what it is. And that's perfectly cool, just not for me.
Jacob & Co. 💰🧼
Watches that I would NEVER buy:
1. AP Royal Oak - boring watch af
2. PP Nautilus - ugly
3. any Richard Mille - weird
4. most Rolexes
5. Hublot - ugly
6. any fashion brand i.e. Diesel, DW, Fossil etc
AP Royal Oak - boring watch af
2. PP Nautilus - ugly
4. most Rolexes
Lol
Hate to burst your bubble: many (not all) watches may be homages to others, not many watches are *copies* of others. Great authentic design is still a thing, even if it’s not 100% original — that’s where these copies fall flat and will never measure up to well executed homages no matter how hard their fans try to conflate the two, and these are the watches @jordi.nunez was referencing: copies, not actual homages.
I get what your saying but look at Rolex they took everything Blancpain did with the Fifty Fathoms Rolex makes the Submariner and claimed they were the first, same with Glycine Airman they became the first pilots watches for pilots and Rolex of course comes along and says hey we can copy that too. As much as I like Rolex they’re just as guilty copying what others did first. I will never drop thousands on a design that 99.99% of those will not even notice or care when I can get the same look for 1/10th the price.
AP Royal Oak - boring watch af
2. PP Nautilus - ugly
4. most Rolexes
Lol
Dont get me wrong I like AP, PP because of their history, heritage, build quality etc, just not the Oak and Nautilus models cause they are just not my taste. Regarding rolexes there are a few I like, the daytona rainbow I hate for example 😄
Watch brands always have the ability to surprise and to evolve. There's many brands I don't gravitate towards but none that I'd swear off completely.
I'd never buy or wear a watch that was produced in collaboration with a snake oil salesman like TGV though. His 'pay to play' style of content is completely devoid of substance and his willingness to use whatever influence he still has to hype any product to his (usually unseasoned) fans borders on the sociopathic imho.
Wow, that's very strong about TGV. I like his videos. Am I missing something?
Damn. This information has definitely given me pause. The Mark XX was definitely on the horizon for me as a likely future purchase, now I’m not so sure. I appreciate this detailed write up and will do more research. 🧐
Hackmartian's posting about this was invaluable to me when buying my Mark XX. I wrote a post about it which you can find easily if you search IWC. Main point: use a watch accuracy app to test the watch before purchase. That worked for me
I get what your saying but look at Rolex they took everything Blancpain did with the Fifty Fathoms Rolex makes the Submariner and claimed they were the first, same with Glycine Airman they became the first pilots watches for pilots and Rolex of course comes along and says hey we can copy that too. As much as I like Rolex they’re just as guilty copying what others did first. I will never drop thousands on a design that 99.99% of those will not even notice or care when I can get the same look for 1/10th the price.
Wrong on both counts (I apologize to everyone else for the length of this reply as I’ll be copying and pasting from previous discussions on other platforms). Joker, so as not to derail this thread, happy to chat privately if you want to keep this going: those talking points have been debunked several times, don’t believe everything you watch on YouTube. A pair of talking hands and co pushed this bs for clickbait for so long that it stuck; I remember watching one of his videos on Blancpain that made me roll my eyes. Ignoring Perezscope’s debunking of that narrative, there are other facts that prove this untrue even if you’re dubious about the article. The Sub’s design actually comes from the Rolex Turnographe, which in turn took its design cues from the rare Rolex Zerographe 3346. This was built in 1937, 15 years before the Fifty Fathoms. He lost me when he said Rolex took the “triangle at 12, rectangles at 3,6,9” from the FF; Rolex was already using this in the Zerographe in 1937, and then also in the Panerai that Rolex designed / built in the ‘40s. The Rolex Oyster case was already dive capable at 100m, before the FF’s 91m. It was months after the release of the FF and Turnographe that Rolex *may* have adopted the idea of a unidirectional bezel from Blancpain for the Sub (Perezscope’s article casts serious doubts on this), but the Rolex Turnographe featured the Submariner DNA that existed long before the FF, with the exception of the dive markings on the bezel. That’s certainly not “taking everything Blancpain did”.
Glycine. Iconic watch and a legend, but the relationship to the GMT Master is also mistaken and easily disproven by Glycine themselves. The modern Airman in blue is one of my favorite watches by the way. Copied and pasted from a previous discussion on this topic:
The 1953 Glycine Airman was capable of telling the time in multiple time zones via a 24-hour bezel (and AM/PM indicator), but it did not use the format or style popularized by the GMT Master — you have to go a lot further back than that to the 1925 Longines Zulu Time, a square cased watch with a GMT hand. The 1954 Rolex GMT Master 6542 was the first to pair the GMT hand and bezel in the format we know today, and a couple of decades later just before the release of the GMT Master II, the GMT Master became the first ‘true/flyer’ GMT watch.
Regarding that fourth GMT hand, Glycine’s small hand (the tail) was added in 1955 (one year after the GMT Master) to the minute hand, and then moved to the hour hand in 1957 (three years after the GMT Master) to enable tracking in 12-hour format; the original 1953 Airman relied solely on the 24-hour bezel and 24-hour dial, a completely different approach to Rolex’s.
Source (Glycine’s historical archive): https://glycine-watch.ch/history
Horage’s History of the GMT watch: https://www.shop.horage.com/forum/k2-english/history-of-the-gmt-where-supersede-fits-in
Source (Glycentennial): https://glycintennial.com/glycine-airman
By the way, functional design can and often is standardized; if you want to class that as ‘copying’ that’s one way of looking at it and technically won’t be inaccurate, however that’s not what people find egregious: it’s the *blatant* and repeated copying of several other brands’ entire aesthetic design that’s an issue.
Wrong on both counts (I apologize to everyone else for the length of this reply as I’ll be copying and pasting from previous discussions on other platforms). Joker, so as not to derail this thread, happy to chat privately if you want to keep this going: those talking points have been debunked several times, don’t believe everything you watch on YouTube. A pair of talking hands and co pushed this bs for clickbait for so long that it stuck; I remember watching one of his videos on Blancpain that made me roll my eyes. Ignoring Perezscope’s debunking of that narrative, there are other facts that prove this untrue even if you’re dubious about the article. The Sub’s design actually comes from the Rolex Turnographe, which in turn took its design cues from the rare Rolex Zerographe 3346. This was built in 1937, 15 years before the Fifty Fathoms. He lost me when he said Rolex took the “triangle at 12, rectangles at 3,6,9” from the FF; Rolex was already using this in the Zerographe in 1937, and then also in the Panerai that Rolex designed / built in the ‘40s. The Rolex Oyster case was already dive capable at 100m, before the FF’s 91m. It was months after the release of the FF and Turnographe that Rolex *may* have adopted the idea of a unidirectional bezel from Blancpain for the Sub (Perezscope’s article casts serious doubts on this), but the Rolex Turnographe featured the Submariner DNA that existed long before the FF, with the exception of the dive markings on the bezel. That’s certainly not “taking everything Blancpain did”.
Glycine. Iconic watch and a legend, but the relationship to the GMT Master is also mistaken and easily disproven by Glycine themselves. The modern Airman in blue is one of my favorite watches by the way. Copied and pasted from a previous discussion on this topic:
The 1953 Glycine Airman was capable of telling the time in multiple time zones via a 24-hour bezel (and AM/PM indicator), but it did not use the format or style popularized by the GMT Master — you have to go a lot further back than that to the 1925 Longines Zulu Time, a square cased watch with a GMT hand. The 1954 Rolex GMT Master 6542 was the first to pair the GMT hand and bezel in the format we know today, and a couple of decades later just before the release of the GMT Master II, the GMT Master became the first ‘true/flyer’ GMT watch.
Regarding that fourth GMT hand, Glycine’s small hand (the tail) was added in 1955 (one year after the GMT Master) to the minute hand, and then moved to the hour hand in 1957 (three years after the GMT Master) to enable tracking in 12-hour format; the original 1953 Airman relied solely on the 24-hour bezel and 24-hour dial, a completely different approach to Rolex’s.
Source (Glycine’s historical archive): https://glycine-watch.ch/history
Horage’s History of the GMT watch: https://www.shop.horage.com/forum/k2-english/history-of-the-gmt-where-supersede-fits-in
Source (Glycentennial): https://glycintennial.com/glycine-airman
By the way, functional design can and often is standardized; if you want to class that as ‘copying’ that’s one way of looking at it and technically won’t be inaccurate, however that’s not what people find egregious: it’s the *blatant* and repeated copying of several other brands’ entire aesthetic design that’s an issue.
You know what they say about opinions 😂. All I was saying was just because Rolex popularize something doesn’t always make it true. Take the first chronograph everyone thought Nicolas Rieussec invented it just to discover Louis Moinet invented it. I’m surprise Rolex hasn’t come out yet and said we invented it.
You know what they say about opinions 😂. All I was saying was just because Rolex popularize something doesn’t always make it true. Take the first chronograph everyone thought Nicolas Rieussec invented it just to discover Louis Moinet invented it. I’m surprise Rolex hasn’t come out yet and said we invented it.
No, what you said that spurred this convo was that everything is a copy, and that for example Rolex copied “everything” Blancpain and Glycine did, which is factually incorrect (I suggest you change your sources of information, that sounds eerily like the usual YouTube clickbait). I’ve given facts, not opinion, and provided objective sources (for example from Glycine themselves, not Rolex). With your last reply you’re moving goalposts my friend, I’ve already pointed out that functional design and aesthetic design are not the same thing, which addresses it: the discussion is not about who invented the first Chrono or the GMT or the diver — the discussion is about the difference between blatantly copying vs homaging aesthetic design, and why Jordi said the former is a disqualifier for him. The GMT Master 6542 is a GMT watch, and the Monta Skyquest is also a GMT watch — they share the same function. The Monta is a beautiful homage to the OG GMT Master — it’s aesthetics are inspired by the GMT Master, but it’s not a blatant copy. The non-GMT Timex Q does *not* share the same function as the GMT Master, but it is an homage to the GMT Master, it is not a blatant copy. Function vs aesthetics. If you wish to continue this discussion, let’s take it private so as not to derail the OP further.
Love this post. Haha.
What about the Swiss hoarding Nazi gold?
That’s a bridge too far for me. Lmao
Once was enough for me. Never again. Learned my lesson.
Same for me.