Stupid, sexy Seiko

He whined about Seiko getting better movements and said they devalue his Grand Seiko's. Watch snob just wants to look down on Seiko.

I think that was the controversial point of the video. It’s contentious for sure. $5k for a Seiko is a large ask, especially when it uses a movement that was bespoke to an individual line that prides itself on exquisite finishing and execution. 
 

I personally love Seiko and think they’re doing great things to appeal to a broad audience. I think Kevin appreciated the finishing of the LX line but was not a fan of having that unique movement drawn down into the parent company. However, if one has the means to buy a $5k Seiko then the appreciation of GS is next in line and will be the gateway to collecting those higher end GSs.

I have mixed feeling about O'Leary. He represents a lot of what I dislike in people and society and I would definitely pass if he was the only Dragon/Shark interested in my pitch. However, I don't hate him in this video and he makes a fair point. If I bought a Grand Seiko as an investment; a Seiko for significantly less with the same quality and movement would well annoy me. Luckily I don't buy watches for investment purposes nor will I ever so it's a nil issue for me.

FYI my wife may divorce me for saying I agree with Kevin O'Leary so I hope she never sees this.

Never thought I would say this, but Kevin is right about the Spring Drive. 

They've eroded the exclusivity of the Grand Seiko technology by putting it into a Seiko watch. The market may demand that the GS comes down in price, because it's clear the movement can be put into much cheaper watches. 

This is not like the moonSwatch, which was always cheap technology and materials with the facade of a premium watch. No-one is going to demand that Omega charges less for the speedmaster. 

But... if GS now comes out with a thin, light, hyper-accurate new version of the Spring Drive and give it a completely different name, then that might save them. But they should have brought this new technology out first before putting their older movements into Seiko watches. 

So what about collectors who don’t have Seiko, or have no reverence for them? Does that make me less of a collector?

My first watch was an Omega I inherited. I then bought a Tag to save it for best, then a vintage Omega to save that, and then loads of vintage Roamer, Enicar, Rado… to wear as beaters. My point of reference is Swiss hand-wound mechanicals. I had a vintage Orient diver phase, but doesn’t everyone? I have over 60 watches and 0 Seiko. Rolex, Omega, Cartier, Breitling, Tag, Enicar, Roamer, Cyma, Gruen, Buren, Vertex, Corum, Hamilton, Smiths, CWC, Oris… clearly I don’t know s**t then because I have no Seiko.

It’s a personal choice as to what to collect. It's fine not having a particular brand in a collection. I think where their reasoning lies is that Seiko is seen as an affordable entry into collecting. They offer good mechanical pieces as well as good quartz pieces. Most are finished well therefore one can appreciate the art of horology and get interested enough to collect vintage and modern pieces from watchmakers with a heritage. 
 

Everyone starts their collection differently. That's the beauty of this hobby. You never know what's going to spark the fire. 

I would argue that in recent years that Seiko are not the affordable entry point they were.

Likewise, the spark is different, so the argument in the original post is not technically valid as it’s a broad statement to assume Seiko is a universal entry point.

I concur. Seiko is no longer the affordable entry point it once was. There are a few pieces but most are up there past the $200 mark.

I don't assume Seiko to be an entry point. Hell, mine was a Dejuno limited edition dinosaur identifier series watch. But I do think that a lot of people look or looked at Seiko as a starting point because of its availability and brand recognition. At least for the sane ones that aren't getting their watch advice from MVMT or Filipo Loretti "influencers"

I think I am quite lucky, in that I had Omega and a lot of random Swiss mechanicals as a start from my grandfather. I’m nowhere near a snob/purist, but I think I was severely influenced by that cache at a very young age - why else would I be wearing 70-80 year old watches as dailies at my age.

You were indeed lucky to be influenced by such pieces at an early age. Growing up we didn't have much. For me, that dinosaur watch was everything. It wasn't new. My dad found it and had a battery put in. He gave it to me one afternoon when he came home from work. I studied that dial for hours because of raised dino bodies. It wasn't until I was working and earning enough, that I seriously started looking at "heritage" makers. What I collect now, I take care of because I want to pass them down to my sons. It's like the Patek thing, except on an affordable level. 

Older seikos are good,new stuff is over priced for what you get.

I started with Timex, Hamilton, and Omega. I had some fashion watches, but never had an Orient or Seiko phase.  My Seiko acquisition has almost been accidental and I don't have the same ones that everyone starts with.  I have thought about reaching back and getting one, but the rotation is pretty full with things that barely work.

I think that the entire Seiko line is going through a transformation.  It would not surprise me if they quickly move to address quality control and finishing issues.  Seiko and Rolex dominate these conversations.  I understand why.  Frankly, the Seiko complaints are more interesting to me than the Rolex ones. If Seiko fixes their issues they may genuinely dominate many niches in the watch industry.