Food for Thought Discussion
What makes a watch a particular watch? Is it the movement? Is it the case? Is it both? There seems to be a collective, and yet, subjective view of watches being a particular kind of watch. Let me be more specific.
Take the original Willard for example. We know it's a Seiko, because they make it. It's still a Seiko even with a different band put on later.
Yet, we have homage watches of the Willard; like Steeldive, Addiesdive, etc. These homages even have Seiko movements in them. Yet they are not Seiko watches. Seiko heart, but Steeldive (etc) body.
However, if we take a Casio Royale, remove the movement, and use something like the SKX mod kit to place the mechanism into a completely new body, it's still called a Casio Royale. Granted, we add in that it's modded, but it's still considered a Royale. We don't call it an SKX Royale with a Casio movement (or mechanism).
In reverse, if we took a Skmei movement and placed it in a Casio case, it would be considered a Skmei watch. The same applies if we were to take a Seagull movement and place it into a Rolex body. It would no longer be a Rolex. Some may categorize them as Frankenwatches, but I see that term typically applied to pieced together vintage mechanical watches.
Generally, we do consider watches like Rolex to be such in its entirety. However, we find Rolexes modded (often to one's horror) and Seikos modded. They still retain their monikers for the most part.
Largely, we can agree to these subjective, unwritten rules of what makes a watch a particular watch. Watches seem to possess an intrinsic, almost ethereal quality that governs their identity. I'm sure there are shades of grey that vary from person to person.
So, what are your thoughts? What makes a watch a particular watch?
Submitted for your approval, a man and the watches he wears in... the twilight zone.
It all comes to traceability and not wanting to take a support/service/maintenance responsibility that doesn’t belong to you. An innocent case can become a customer support nightmare very fast, be it in $300 watches, be it in high end industrial hardware. I’m a support engineer for a living, so I can only imagine the situation as if it landed on my inbox.
Imagine you have your Steeldive with a NH35 movement, you go to the lengths of purchasing (somehow) OEM parts for it, the case, the hands, the dial, the bracelet, the caseback, etc. and assemble a pseudo-Willard with them. Is it a Seiko? Under a support engineer standpoint, it is not, it will never be on its wildest dreams, and the company should never touch it with a mile-long pole. There’s no serial numbers that can be traced back to see what went wrong with anything, there’s no logs about who put together the movement, no logs on the machines that produced the movement… you’d be operating in the dark, costing everybody a lot of time and resources.
Taking in such a responsibility would quickly become a support nightmare and a “he said she said” case very fast, that could even result in legal trouble. It is advisable to err very much in the side of caution and prioritise caution over a quick buck.
There's the obvious style cues that something has where one might call it something else for the sake of convenience (i.e calling a slab of watermelon a "steak" even though it's clearly not a steak). An incel sleuth would of course have the technical reasoning to argue against it.
I guess the lines exist wherever we decide to draw them and how strongly we want to enforce them.
I'd call a homage whatever it's homaging so long as it's blatantly obvious that the watch in question is a homage.
It all comes to traceability and not wanting to take a support/service/maintenance responsibility that doesn’t belong to you. An innocent case can become a customer support nightmare very fast, be it in $300 watches, be it in high end industrial hardware. I’m a support engineer for a living, so I can only imagine the situation as if it landed on my inbox.
Imagine you have your Steeldive with a NH35 movement, you go to the lengths of purchasing (somehow) OEM parts for it, the case, the hands, the dial, the bracelet, the caseback, etc. and assemble a pseudo-Willard with them. Is it a Seiko? Under a support engineer standpoint, it is not, it will never be on its wildest dreams, and the company should never touch it with a mile-long pole. There’s no serial numbers that can be traced back to see what went wrong with anything, there’s no logs about who put together the movement, no logs on the machines that produced the movement… you’d be operating in the dark, costing everybody a lot of time and resources.
Taking in such a responsibility would quickly become a support nightmare and a “he said she said” case very fast, that could even result in legal trouble. It is advisable to err very much in the side of caution and prioritise caution over a quick buck.
The getting OEM parts would just be a long way to get an original watch. I've seen watches like the Willard (a watch I chose as an example due to the homages and original & re-release) where a watchmaker has replaced the entire movement with an original movement (whether its brand new or doaner). Doesn't change the watch from being the watch that it is.
In these cases, said watch probably never goes back to the factory or dealer, but an independent watchmaker. I have seen restoration jobs where original parts are used and some have had the manufacturer service them later when they wouldn't touch it before. I haven't heard stories about someone who has gone the route you said or with and original with an OEM replacement and going back to the manufacturer for service etc and being a squabble. Though, I'm not in that side of the watch industry.
As much as they have standards that govern what is considered a Swiss made watch, they do no have standards that determine a watch's status or providence. We all kind of follow this determination, but there are no hard lines or guidelines to it. So, watches seem to have an X factor that eludes a metric.
There's the obvious style cues that something has where one might call it something else for the sake of convenience (i.e calling a slab of watermelon a "steak" even though it's clearly not a steak). An incel sleuth would of course have the technical reasoning to argue against it.
I guess the lines exist wherever we decide to draw them and how strongly we want to enforce them.
I'd call a homage whatever it's homaging so long as it's blatantly obvious that the watch in question is a homage.
I follow the watch world in calling things an homage, or a mod, or a fake, etc. I'm more calling attention to the weird invisible lines that make these differences. To me, it's interesting to think about since they're entirely subjective and yet universally agreed upon.
It's kind of like how ancient people didn't have a word that defined the color blue, but would call blue either purple or green. Or how there are multitudes of subtle shades we can't see the differences between due to not knowing a name for it. Of course, if can be quantified and given a designation. Yet, collectively we can en mass agree on categories with vague parameters. Like calling something that's teal either blue or green - it would be mostly right. Whereas saying something that is teal is actually red would be wildly off.
We agree saying, yes, it's blue or green, and agree that it is not red. Then we come up with a more specific category of teal. Same with watches. Anyone can split hairs and try to create further precise categories, but practically everyone can agree based off of a loose idea, yet they would have a harder time laying down a more exact qualification.
I follow the watch world in calling things an homage, or a mod, or a fake, etc. I'm more calling attention to the weird invisible lines that make these differences. To me, it's interesting to think about since they're entirely subjective and yet universally agreed upon.
It's kind of like how ancient people didn't have a word that defined the color blue, but would call blue either purple or green. Or how there are multitudes of subtle shades we can't see the differences between due to not knowing a name for it. Of course, if can be quantified and given a designation. Yet, collectively we can en mass agree on categories with vague parameters. Like calling something that's teal either blue or green - it would be mostly right. Whereas saying something that is teal is actually red would be wildly off.
We agree saying, yes, it's blue or green, and agree that it is not red. Then we come up with a more specific category of teal. Same with watches. Anyone can split hairs and try to create further precise categories, but practically everyone can agree based off of a loose idea, yet they would have a harder time laying down a more exact qualification.
They aren't really subjective. There are in fact hard lines that define which watch is what. It just depends on which hills the individual wants to die on and which ones they're okay with letting others be technically incorrect. It's a mixture of reading the room, polite communication skills, and not taking things too seriously.
Respectively, it sounds like you slipped from hard lines to subjective. The things you listed in the last part of your comment allows a wide latitude of interpretation voiding objective standards.
I'm not saying objective or subjective standards are bad or good. Just noting the odd differences in these circumstances. No organization has outlined the standards, and the subjective standards are fun, polite, do allow for technical error, and for reading a room, and not being too serious.
For me watch's identity is a blend of brand and design. The movement can play a role, especially for iconic models like the Seiko Willard. Modifications can blur the lines, but heavily modded watches are often called "homages" or "Frankenwatches." Ultimately, it's a collective understanding of what defines a particular watch.