Why are some brands such sleepers?
This was sparked by a comment from @YYZ_Frenchie: Why do some storied brands get significantly less attention in the enthusiast community than they deserve?
The case for ignoring microbrands seems pretty straightforward to me: They're largely unproven; and it's unclear if their releases will live up to whatever Kickstarter hype they've initially drummed up. Some brands exceed initial expectations and thrive; others just disappear.
But help me out? I'm fairly convinced that some brands with (1) rich histories and (2) seemingly great catalogues fly consistently under the radar. @YYZ_Frenchie mentioned Stowa, Damasko, maybe Sinn. I'd add Fortis, and perhaps Junghans. Maybe Yema? This list is somewhat arbitrary, but it hopefully illustrates the point.
Why is this happening? Here are some possible explanations:
A brand used to be great and reputable, but now makes watches that are less interesting and of lower quality. Nobody wants to buy into a slow and gradual decline.
Price points. Some brands with rich histories want to position themselves one or two tiers higher than they realistically are. Their watches are overpriced.
The rise of the micros/Chrono24. People who would have bought from storied brands in the past are now opting for microbrands and/or for second-hand watches from higher-tier brands that trade below retail.
Peer effects. We are drawn towards brands that are already "validated" by the enthusiast community. If you're spending $$$ on a watch, you don't want a dud. Hype is an imperfect signal for quality, but a signal nonetheless. So some brands get stuck in a hype loop; others get stuck in a loop of disregard.
Social media have replaced ADs as the primary source of watch-related information. Some brands don't know how to play the social media game, so they get ignored.
Misperception/too niche. We look at Junghans and think, "they only do Bauhaus."
Tastes have changed, and a brand's offerings haven't kept up.
Something else?
The more I think about this, the more I'm puzzled. Thoughts?
Lack of marketing (whether intentional or not). Some brands spend a healthy amount of budget on product placement and sponsorships, which then gets the brand recognition.
From the brands listed, I would say the budget range is $500-$1,500. Kind of a wide range I know. In that area I think The Swatch Group just dominates in terms of production numbers and marketing.
That’s just the Swiss side. Obviously, Seiko has the majority hold of the non Swiss market.
So when it comes to watch reviews, articles , or searches in your preferred shopping platform; these great brands are out of sight out of mind. Damasko, Fortis, and such I think I’ve only seen from Long Island Watch.
In my opinion though , these brands that do fly low key are great because it’s very much an enthusiast niche. Nobody just happens to buy a Yema. If you got one, I instantly know you’re a watch person.
I like to buy from a brick and mortar operation, Toronto is not a hick town, yet I could not find a single Sinn a few years ago when the brand intrigued me enough to call around the city. The most communicative guy suggested I investigate other brands. My experience with Fortis was painful: I was familiar with the brand from a trip to France where I spotted some interesting models in a small father and son watch shop but could not communicate adequately to purchase a watch. Returning to Toronto noticed a display in the shop window of a small boutique. Eventually bought with good discounts 3 different watches but the agent was playing games with his ads the brand was abandoned servicing was somewhere in New Jersey, I cannot be bothered, sold 2 suffered a loss, still have my Cosmonaut alarm watch which was serviced by an independent watchmaker. I just prefer having a person or a boutique to support my watches after sales. That idiosyncratic preference eliminates quite a few brands but still more than I need.
I like to buy from a brick and mortar operation, Toronto is not a hick town, yet I could not find a single Sinn a few years ago when the brand intrigued me enough to call around the city. The most communicative guy suggested I investigate other brands. My experience with Fortis was painful: I was familiar with the brand from a trip to France where I spotted some interesting models in a small father and son watch shop but could not communicate adequately to purchase a watch. Returning to Toronto noticed a display in the shop window of a small boutique. Eventually bought with good discounts 3 different watches but the agent was playing games with his ads the brand was abandoned servicing was somewhere in New Jersey, I cannot be bothered, sold 2 suffered a loss, still have my Cosmonaut alarm watch which was serviced by an independent watchmaker. I just prefer having a person or a boutique to support my watches after sales. That idiosyncratic preference eliminates quite a few brands but still more than I need.
Great point!
While marketing is a key point, I think for Sinn and Hanhart in particular it’s about distribution. Not enough ADs in the US with physical locations. I’d love to handle a Sinn or Hanhart at a storefront instead of buying online based on YouTube and word of mouth. I think the casual US consumer is exposed to Timex, Casio, Swatch Group brands, Breitling, Rolex, Bulova, Invicta and Seiko at jewelers or large department stores. Other Swiss and select German brands require a visit to a watch store like Torneau or a boutique. Not surprised that some favorites among enthusiasts have little recognition. Out of sight, out of mind. Just my observation.
Also might depend on audience and environment.
Been a firearms enthusiast long before my service and I was aware of Sinn simply due to their affiliation with various tactical and/or hard use wearers.
Damasko happened due to the inevitable, "I don't want hairline scratches on my new watch posts on very early Watchuseek."
Also to be honest, even though it's a Germanic concept, I hear Bauhaus and I'm not really paying attention, just not my cup of tea, so that would explain the lack of knowledge on my part.
Some of the pilots I have had the pleasure of working with are also very aware of and have even been wearing Sinn and Fortis.
A lot of people like to buy what it already well known, as pointed out in @mart1n's point 4.
As he mentioned, it is a bit of a guarantee of quality, though not always that much of one... (Seiko) It's also a way to buy a watch that other people in the community won't give you a hard time over buying. Buy a Casio or Seiko and you are guaranteed to get lots of likes and approving comments. Buy a Damasko and you'll get some, maybe. Buy a MoonSwatch and you can almost guarantee that someone will post about it being a cheap plastic toy...
Some people don't care about that, but based on how many popular brands you see that are no better or worse than other brands, it's not that uncommon.
I think that you may be looking at the wrong end of the telescope. The internet, WatchCrunch, Instagram, YouTube, and all the rest expose us to many more brands than we ever would have been exposed to in the past.
If you had a time machine and travelled back to 1970 in the U.S. you would see print ads in newspapers and magazines. You would go to a jewelry store or department store. You would see exotic brands in print ads like Cartier and Rolex. In department stores you would see Clinton, Dorset, Orvin, Andre Bouchard along with Benrus, Timex and Bulova. If you lived in the U.K. the market would have been flooded with cheap Timex and Seconda. In much of Europe you would similarly see Timex, Poljot, Omega and Rolex. In France you would see French brands, in East Germany Ruhle. All brands were more regional and small. Asia had brands never seen in North America. Only travelers broke up these regional monopolies by buying in far flung places.
Rather than being sleepers it is just a function of your (or our) perspective. Fortis has always been a small respected producer. They sell as many watches as they can produce. Their reach will only extend so far into the market. We now know them and with the internet can readily buy one. Where did you have to go to buy a Yema in 1970? Buying a Bulova was much easier.
"Exposure" is volume, advertising, visibility, and reputation. All of those things are enhanced in the interconnected market of today. For example, West End has sold more than 15 million watches in its history. How many people on this watch forum can name a single model? And, West End has been using the same model names for, in some cases, 90 years. Is it West End's fault that I hadn't heard of them until several years ago, or was it mine? Like Fortis, they sell every watch that they produce. They are not underperforming anymore than Fortis is. It is just that they are not marketing necessarily to all of us.
I think that you may be looking at the wrong end of the telescope. The internet, WatchCrunch, Instagram, YouTube, and all the rest expose us to many more brands than we ever would have been exposed to in the past.
If you had a time machine and travelled back to 1970 in the U.S. you would see print ads in newspapers and magazines. You would go to a jewelry store or department store. You would see exotic brands in print ads like Cartier and Rolex. In department stores you would see Clinton, Dorset, Orvin, Andre Bouchard along with Benrus, Timex and Bulova. If you lived in the U.K. the market would have been flooded with cheap Timex and Seconda. In much of Europe you would similarly see Timex, Poljot, Omega and Rolex. In France you would see French brands, in East Germany Ruhle. All brands were more regional and small. Asia had brands never seen in North America. Only travelers broke up these regional monopolies by buying in far flung places.
Rather than being sleepers it is just a function of your (or our) perspective. Fortis has always been a small respected producer. They sell as many watches as they can produce. Their reach will only extend so far into the market. We now know them and with the internet can readily buy one. Where did you have to go to buy a Yema in 1970? Buying a Bulova was much easier.
"Exposure" is volume, advertising, visibility, and reputation. All of those things are enhanced in the interconnected market of today. For example, West End has sold more than 15 million watches in its history. How many people on this watch forum can name a single model? And, West End has been using the same model names for, in some cases, 90 years. Is it West End's fault that I hadn't heard of them until several years ago, or was it mine? Like Fortis, they sell every watch that they produce. They are not underperforming anymore than Fortis is. It is just that they are not marketing necessarily to all of us.
Ah, very good point! Although I'm still wondering why some companies made the jump from "small respected producer" to widely lauded enthusiast brand while others have not. I'm not sure one is a better outcome than the other (as you already said, smaller/regional/specialist brands still sell every watch they produce), but they still seem like meaningfully different outcomes?
Ah, very good point! Although I'm still wondering why some companies made the jump from "small respected producer" to widely lauded enthusiast brand while others have not. I'm not sure one is a better outcome than the other (as you already said, smaller/regional/specialist brands still sell every watch they produce), but they still seem like meaningfully different outcomes?
Now I think that you are on to something. The more that I learn about the watch industry the more that I am convinced that a charismatic founder and position in the market at a certain time make all of the difference in our perception.
My example this time is the Wein family. More than a hundred years ago they fled the Russian empire and settled in Chicago and Montreal. Brother Hyman started the Clinton Watch Company. Brother Morris founded Marathon. Sister Rose and her husband founded Cardinal. For the first 50 years Hyman was the clear winner in the family. No one remembers Cardinal now (Poljot movements cased for sale in British territories). Clinton was in many fine stores and was probably the sixth or seventh largest brand in the U.S. Marathon sold mainly to the Canadian armed forces.
Our taste in watches changed. The product that Marathon was selling became increasingly more popular. If you like rugged, no-nonsense military style watches Marathon was positioned to enter your consciousness. Clinton was your grandfather's watch. Marathon is the one that everyone on WC talks about. Right place, right product.
Now I think that you are on to something. The more that I learn about the watch industry the more that I am convinced that a charismatic founder and position in the market at a certain time make all of the difference in our perception.
My example this time is the Wein family. More than a hundred years ago they fled the Russian empire and settled in Chicago and Montreal. Brother Hyman started the Clinton Watch Company. Brother Morris founded Marathon. Sister Rose and her husband founded Cardinal. For the first 50 years Hyman was the clear winner in the family. No one remembers Cardinal now (Poljot movements cased for sale in British territories). Clinton was in many fine stores and was probably the sixth or seventh largest brand in the U.S. Marathon sold mainly to the Canadian armed forces.
Our taste in watches changed. The product that Marathon was selling became increasingly more popular. If you like rugged, no-nonsense military style watches Marathon was positioned to enter your consciousness. Clinton was your grandfather's watch. Marathon is the one that everyone on WC talks about. Right place, right product.
Yeah, maybe there's some amount of randomness in this: Right place, right product, right time. And I think I generally prefer a world where watch manufacturers don't pivot constantly to chase trends but keep doing their thing. Sometimes that thing turns you into a highly discussed brand, and sometimes it means that you get to make great watches in (relative) obscurity.
A lot of people like to buy what it already well known, as pointed out in @mart1n's point 4.
As he mentioned, it is a bit of a guarantee of quality, though not always that much of one... (Seiko) It's also a way to buy a watch that other people in the community won't give you a hard time over buying. Buy a Casio or Seiko and you are guaranteed to get lots of likes and approving comments. Buy a Damasko and you'll get some, maybe. Buy a MoonSwatch and you can almost guarantee that someone will post about it being a cheap plastic toy...
Some people don't care about that, but based on how many popular brands you see that are no better or worse than other brands, it's not that uncommon.
Based on the number of "what do you guys think about my watch purchase XYZ" posts, I think it's quite common?
Yeah, maybe there's some amount of randomness in this: Right place, right product, right time. And I think I generally prefer a world where watch manufacturers don't pivot constantly to chase trends but keep doing their thing. Sometimes that thing turns you into a highly discussed brand, and sometimes it means that you get to make great watches in (relative) obscurity.
Chasing trends doesn't always work. Here is Bulova in the 1970's:
Those designs look "borrowed." Bulova did not survive the decade as an independent brand.
Chasing trends doesn't always work. Here is Bulova in the 1970's:
Those designs look "borrowed." Bulova did not survive the decade as an independent brand.
Really appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge and repertoire of examples!
We all assume watch enthusiasts know all of the higher tiered and micro-,brands. I had never heard of Stowa or Demasko until I joined Watch Crunch. And that was largely based on WRUW posts.
The other reason can be negative feedback about brands from a lack of customer service and reliability (I won't mention the brand). While I like the look of this brands watches I won't take the chance.
Lastly, those that have a storied history will be the brands in the forefront. Every watch youtuber talks and reviews the same watches whether high end or budget friendly.
Your list covered most of them. Thoughtful post that is provoking some thought.
While marketing is a key point, I think for Sinn and Hanhart in particular it’s about distribution. Not enough ADs in the US with physical locations. I’d love to handle a Sinn or Hanhart at a storefront instead of buying online based on YouTube and word of mouth. I think the casual US consumer is exposed to Timex, Casio, Swatch Group brands, Breitling, Rolex, Bulova, Invicta and Seiko at jewelers or large department stores. Other Swiss and select German brands require a visit to a watch store like Torneau or a boutique. Not surprised that some favorites among enthusiasts have little recognition. Out of sight, out of mind. Just my observation.
In Australia there is only one big supplier of German watch brands in Noosa in Queensland Australia. I am 1000 kms or more from them . Great customer service but I agree I want to try a watch on ! Peter from Design Watches is a great AD in saying that . I purchased a SInn 104ST from him , excellent customer service and support. I still wish I had tried it on first as I sold it later for being tgat bit too chunky for my personal taste on my skinny wrist. I want a Hanhart too but same thing your saying …
I think that you may be looking at the wrong end of the telescope. The internet, WatchCrunch, Instagram, YouTube, and all the rest expose us to many more brands than we ever would have been exposed to in the past.
If you had a time machine and travelled back to 1970 in the U.S. you would see print ads in newspapers and magazines. You would go to a jewelry store or department store. You would see exotic brands in print ads like Cartier and Rolex. In department stores you would see Clinton, Dorset, Orvin, Andre Bouchard along with Benrus, Timex and Bulova. If you lived in the U.K. the market would have been flooded with cheap Timex and Seconda. In much of Europe you would similarly see Timex, Poljot, Omega and Rolex. In France you would see French brands, in East Germany Ruhle. All brands were more regional and small. Asia had brands never seen in North America. Only travelers broke up these regional monopolies by buying in far flung places.
Rather than being sleepers it is just a function of your (or our) perspective. Fortis has always been a small respected producer. They sell as many watches as they can produce. Their reach will only extend so far into the market. We now know them and with the internet can readily buy one. Where did you have to go to buy a Yema in 1970? Buying a Bulova was much easier.
"Exposure" is volume, advertising, visibility, and reputation. All of those things are enhanced in the interconnected market of today. For example, West End has sold more than 15 million watches in its history. How many people on this watch forum can name a single model? And, West End has been using the same model names for, in some cases, 90 years. Is it West End's fault that I hadn't heard of them until several years ago, or was it mine? Like Fortis, they sell every watch that they produce. They are not underperforming anymore than Fortis is. It is just that they are not marketing necessarily to all of us.
Absolutely bang on assessment. If a watchmaker has all their allocations sold and like the size of their business model, no need to advertise far and wide really . Not every firm really wants to be like The Brain from “Pinky and the brain “. I can’t see FP Journe rushing out to advertise, as there is only him making the watches! Bloody magnificent handmade things of beauty. Mass production is something most of us take for granted nowadays, and generally the more watches you make, the more problems you’ll produce too ( Seiko ) . Anyway I liked your assessment .
Absolutely bang on assessment. If a watchmaker has all their allocations sold and like the size of their business model, no need to advertise far and wide really . Not every firm really wants to be like The Brain from “Pinky and the brain “. I can’t see FP Journe rushing out to advertise, as there is only him making the watches! Bloody magnificent handmade things of beauty. Mass production is something most of us take for granted nowadays, and generally the more watches you make, the more problems you’ll produce too ( Seiko ) . Anyway I liked your assessment .
FP Journe and similar brands are maybe a special case? Many of us here will have heard of them, and their reputations are nothing but stellar, but their watches are likely to be (1) logistically inaccessible, given super low production numbers and (2) financially unaffordable, given super high price. I think the more interesting examples are brands that are (comparatively) accessible and affordable but remain in the "if you know you know" corner. I don't think that's a bad place to be! Although I do think that some folks are a bit too trigger-happy about the likes of Tudor, i.e. super hyped brands, and are too dismissive of under-the-radar companies that produce super solid watches. But I'm starting to ramble. Better stop here.
Based on the number of "what do you guys think about my watch purchase XYZ" posts, I think it's quite common?
I think it's far more common than many people want to admit.
That said, I think part of it is happening in the subconscious mind, and people may have never honestly examined why they like what they like, so they are genuinely unaware of what they are doing.
That’s a great question and would be interesting as a poll. I suspect most people here on WC buy watches cause they genuinely enjoy them, rather than trying to show off.
That’s a great question and would be interesting as a poll. I suspect most people here on WC buy watches cause they genuinely enjoy them, rather than trying to show off.
What if one of the reasons you genuinely enjoy a watch is that your taste/choice/... is validated by others?
"Chasing likes" is well-known across all kinds of social media (with quite obvious mental health implications)... but maybe it's less prevalent here than elsewhere, actually?
What if one of the reasons you genuinely enjoy a watch is that your taste/choice/... is validated by others?
"Chasing likes" is well-known across all kinds of social media (with quite obvious mental health implications)... but maybe it's less prevalent here than elsewhere, actually?
Yep, I mentioned that earlier.
It was rigged!!!! 🤣🤮
Absolutely bang on assessment. If a watchmaker has all their allocations sold and like the size of their business model, no need to advertise far and wide really . Not every firm really wants to be like The Brain from “Pinky and the brain “. I can’t see FP Journe rushing out to advertise, as there is only him making the watches! Bloody magnificent handmade things of beauty. Mass production is something most of us take for granted nowadays, and generally the more watches you make, the more problems you’ll produce too ( Seiko ) . Anyway I liked your assessment .
Just a quick correction regarding FPJ. He’s not the only one making the watches, in fact he is rarely involved in assembling the more “run of the mill” journes and his focus is on the super high end Journes. He has a team of watch makers, very talented watch makers assembling the watches so they arnt really “hand made” per se.
Manufacturing volume, marketing, distribution and service network. These all contribute to the sleeper tag. It may be one or the other or all of them at once.
I have this preference for uncommon pieces with solid specs. Would like to add a Damasko or a Farer to the collection but the hassles of ordering online with the customs process in PH plus the fact that I am not able to see and try one at an AD is preventing me from doing so. 😢
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain
FP Journe and similar brands are maybe a special case? Many of us here will have heard of them, and their reputations are nothing but stellar, but their watches are likely to be (1) logistically inaccessible, given super low production numbers and (2) financially unaffordable, given super high price. I think the more interesting examples are brands that are (comparatively) accessible and affordable but remain in the "if you know you know" corner. I don't think that's a bad place to be! Although I do think that some folks are a bit too trigger-happy about the likes of Tudor, i.e. super hyped brands, and are too dismissive of under-the-radar companies that produce super solid watches. But I'm starting to ramble. Better stop here.
Some fair points !
Agree on microbrands, zero interest to me.
The big conglomerates seem to push certain brands in their stable over others - eg Swatch, you'd think Omega were their premium marque - they should promote Breguet etc more.
Agree on microbrands, zero interest to me.
The big conglomerates seem to push certain brands in their stable over others - eg Swatch, you'd think Omega were their premium marque - they should promote Breguet etc more.
Omega is well recognized luxury, but still within reach of many. I think the least expensive Bregeut is at least twice the cost of the least expensive Omega.
Why waste money promoting a brand out of reach to most luxury watch customers?
Omega is well recognized luxury, but still within reach of many. I think the least expensive Bregeut is at least twice the cost of the least expensive Omega.
Why waste money promoting a brand out of reach to most luxury watch customers?
Yup makes sense. Pretty obvious really 🤦🏻♂️