What is and isn’t a luxury brand?

Rule of thumb: If it costs more than your phone, it’s luxury. 

I looked in all the regular dictionary stops and could not find the description you provided. Luxury, like affordable, is an subjective term, meaning something different to everyone. As it relates to watches; to many a G-Shock or Movado may be luxury. For others it is MB&F. Luxury does not necessarily equal exclusivity. So to answer the question, in my opinion something is luxury when one spends a traditionally inordinate amount (to them) on something that is inessential, but desired.

It is truly the same as asking about affordability. Put all the brands and prices on the board and you have a scale for everyone. Yes, it could be argued a one off handmade, hand finished, hand regulated watch, from one of the finest ateliers (think Atelier Akriva or Grönefeld) may be the pinnacle of craftsmanship and luxury some will never experience, absolutely. For that same consumer, that makes Rolex like a G-shock, and they are widely considered one of, if not the, top luxury brands in the world. Again, all relative. In car terms that is like saying a Genesis can’t be luxury because it’s not a Zagato.

I can appreciate and respect that person who loves their new Bulova just as much as the person who picked up their new 5711.

Maybe luxury is costing more than it needs to, so luxury brands are brands that typically cost more than they need to?  e.g.:

• Casio:  Not a luxury brand as they sell watches generally as cheaply as can be.
• Seiko:  Not luxury becasue they sell Japanese mechanical watches generally as cheaply as can be. 
• Hamilton:  Not luxury as they generally sell Swatch mechanical watches as cheaply as can be.
• Longines: Luxury because you can get a mechanical watch from Swatch cheaper.

I dunno.  It's pretty hard to define.  And probably pointless.

Interesting, I’ve never heard that!

Thank you for your extremely well thought out and articulate response. I love this point of view and do agree completely!

I really like @AllTheWatches's take on it.  It's all relative, yeah?  What blows my mind is this statistic:  You are in the global 1% if you earn $30k annually.  So, to the other 99% in the world, that Casio watch must be a luxury.

You are correct it is pointless! But you make a sound argument. Considering I have now seen three comments with three different definitions, all of which I don’t disagree with, it’s becoming clear it is a silly question with no single answer but many ways to correctly view.

I agree, he nailed it. And that stat is definitely something to chew on! Great point.

I think the meaning of the term, is to spend money on something beyond its intrinsic value. A luxury item is something you bought, just because you wanted it.

From that perspective, for 99.9% of people that own any watch, that watch is a luxury item, regardless of the watch (no one needs a watch)

However the cultural meaning of luxury is not defined, so it means whatever the person thinking it wants it to mean. If you are a millionaire, it means something different than if you are a college student.

A luxury item in my mind is something you can't afford,very expensive and in most cases not worth the money your paying as your usually just paying for the name..

I think in many ways any watch always has been a luxury item, it's not often the average person needs a time telling device on them constantly to know the exact time (vs. looking at a clock).

I think this is a pretty nice definition. As whilst we might not consider a G-Shock to be luxury, there are the metal G-Shocks (such as the new titanium MR-G) which costs upwards of $3,500! 

I guess for me, it means a product that combines exceptionally fine or rare materials, looks and/or has superior build quality, enhanced customer experience etc and hence high worth.  For example on customer experience; when I bought a Tag Heuer from a Tag shop I had a half an hour appointment with drinks and a really decent box of chocolates when I left with the watch.  I guess that's luxury compared to when I bought a Seiko from a dealer and left with the watch and a receipt 5 minutes later. Essentially, what I'm saying, IMHO, is it's a mixture of superior characteristics that overall provide a luxury product.

The product's Engle curve has an elasticity greater than 1.

A tangible and measurable outcome! I like that (not that I know how to calculate it).

It is easier said than done.  But that's the official definition in the field of econ.

And the definition fluctuates by country and income level. :-) It’s all relative. If you look down at your wrist and think, “I treated myself…” it’s luxury.

But, in a capitalist system at least, isn't the very nature of buying something, "to spend money on something beyond its intrinsic value"?

I'm not sure I'm offering anything new to the conversation, but I think luxury, as difficult as it is to precisely define, is a term for a set of goods that cost an order of magnitude more than they ought to, and which is aspirational for certain people. In other words, luxury items are usually sold for much more than the 30-55% markup that is typical of retail goods, thus many people cannot afford them, and people often buy them as a way to indicate—to themselves or others—that they have achieved something distinctive (salary, status, style). 

No. The opposite. It fosters competition, so goods must be sold at a lower price. 

But "luxury" and "capitalism" are not related. All countries, regardless of economic makeup, have luxury items, if they have enough money within the hands of the people, to buy them. 

Didn't Potter Stewart say that he "knows it when he sees it"?

Luxury like time is relative and depends on your frame of reference.