Do watch reviews look at watches through rose colored glasses?

I'm probably being too cynical but I think all reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt.  In addition to the internal biases which we all inherently possess, reviews in publications supported by advertising or "sponsored" in some way (via free watches, a steady supply of loaners enabling reviewers to continue creating more content, actual payment, invites to special events in fancy locations, or advertising) inevitably create the potential for additional bias (even if it is unconscious bias because of good feelings or friendships that develop) or at least to give a brand the benefit of the doubt (i.e. rose colored glasses).

The potential for influence or bias on media from this type of promotion or advertising is not just intuitive (and not limited to watches). Many studies have shown this effect like the one below which found that advertising spend in newspapers by car manufacturers in the 2 years prior resulted in less coverage of safety related car recalls (especially the more severe ones) than coverage for similar recalls for other manufacturers. 

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23940/w23940.pdf

I think that reviewers point out the negatives they notice, but not all reviewers see everything, and not all of them see the same things as negatives. 

I don't see an issue with a minute hand jumping when the crown is pulled out, the whole point of pulling out the crown is to set the time, so correcting the minute is part of the process. With the Cal 400 from Oris the issue was that the minute jumped when pushing the crown in. That's an entirely different ball of wax...

Most watch reviews are entertainment not an issue of Consumer Reports, so they are geared to suit their role as entertainment. I think most reviewers my be unconsciously be biased toward positives, because being overly negative is a turn-off for most people. The only time it isn't is when you are seriously expecting to buy, and want honest feedback. If people only watched reviews before buying, most watch reviews would have a few hundred to a couple of thousand views...  

Not sure you can lay a wear & tear issue at the feet of watch reviewers. 

They get the watch for such a short amount of time before a review is posted that wear & tear is almost never going to show up and not every reviewer knows everything about every single manufacturer, model or feature.

And like @KristianG says, YouTube content (all watch media, really) is by & large entertainment focused; they simply are not going to the lengths Consumer Reports would. 

I think we all have to remember, most youtube channels are enthusiasts. They are not experts and most are working with a limited window with any given watch. In addition, many, will not bother reviewing watches they know they do not like. Lastly, with many, we have to factor in purchase review bias. As others said, take them for entertainment and an additional outlet to be able to see a watch since many folks do not see many brands in person. 

As above, this is generally a result of how the bread gets buttered.

watch reviews really need to mention the negative aspects

Absolutely. Even if, especially if, I have no intention of buying the item, I want to know the faults. It makes me feel like I'm watching something informative and not a commercial. And as far as the entertainment value, faultfinding is better than fawning. 

If I am considering something, as a risk-averse human, I am less interested in the positives than in potential negatives.  

Lastly, I think the tubers and the like are as afraid of the fanbois as they are the manufacturers. The path of least resistance is to not neg anything lest some feathers get ruffled, either in the comments or in the PR greasing.

I appreciate being entertained by reviews, but as @OscarKlosoff has pointed out, I'm also looking to be informed by them. If I'm looking only for entertainment without info, I can think of better ways to spend my time than watching watch reviews on YouTube.

I understand that reviews will be biased, and I also understand a desire for positivity over negativity, but I feel they have an obligation to be as truthful and complete as possible. There are certainly some reviewers who do consistently paint a balanced picture (Tim, from Caseback Watches comes to mind),  but it seems that the majority tend to lean towards a very lopsided sunshine and lollipops viewpoint. 

I can fully agree with what @UnholiestJedi mentions in terms of not being able to address long term wear and tear issues, especially if the review is coming from someone who is basing their review upon limited exposure to the item, rather than having lived with it. Perhaps my expectations in terms of that are simply not realistic, at least from reviews that aren't based on long term use.

I also agree with @KristianG that the issue with the minute hand jumping is less of an issue with the IWC than it is with the Oris 400, but I do feel that it is a big enough issue that it should be mentioned, so that the viewer can decide for themselves whether or not they view it as problematic. If this is truly an issue with the design as the reddit link suggests, and not simply a problem with a handful of watches, then you would think that this would have been something that at least one of the many reviews would have mentioned. Perhaps they didn't experience the issue, and obviously if that is the case, I can't expect them to mention it.

Unless I have the ability to actually hold and examine a watch I'm considering, I really have no choice other than to rely on the opinions of others, and that is why I turn to reviews, both printed and video. I expect those reviews to help guide me in my decision making process, and the best reviews are the ones that point out the facts (both positive & negative) that can enable me to make an informed decision. The tendency for reviews to be overly positive seems to be much more prevalent in the watch world than it is elsewhere.

I mean just look on here: it’s not a great wear, I wish the dial was better… 5/5 in numerous categories. I actually think we should take the scoring off, people cannot be trusted to use them objectively and it undermines some genuinely decent attempts at reviews.

The majority of Watch reviews are done with loaner pieces, and the reviewers don’t have the time with the watches to find or notice every flaw. Also the majority of them are just enthusiasts, not some special breed of watch expert who knows and understands the strict quality control standards that some of their audience may have. 
 

But also there are certain things that could be on a single example, and they may be wary of calling something out without really knowing if it’s a flaw or just that the person who had that review sample had done something wrong. 
 

Content creation (if you do it for a living) is an intense and difficult job. These folks have to crank out content to survive, and they are going to focus on the things that are easy and clear to talk about, that they feel confident they can get right. You can’t unsay something once you publish it. 
 

I used to review a lot of camera gear when I was a pro and had a platform. Unless there was an actual flaw, and I was certain it wasn’t just a fluke, I focused on the features and the things I liked. 

You should look at watch reviews on YouTube more as a first impression by an individual. You can see it up close, hear some general things about it, but you still are responsible for your purchase. If you’re looking for reviewers of watches to be QC for your buying decisions then you’re certain to be disappointed. 

Well, it's slightly different with a watch you bought. If you did your research, you are reviewing a watch that you actually liked from the beginning. (selection bias)  So, it is no surprise that many watch reviews on WatchCrunch are positive. 

For watch reviews to be unbiased, you would have to randomly assign watches to reviewers, yet make the reviewers still pay for them, so that they can adequately opine on the value of the watch.

Yes… and?

If you cannot put your subjectivity aside then perhaps don’t review a watch. Talk about it, sing it’s praises, but it’s not a review if you cannot hide or temper your bias.

Can‘t read the dial - 5/5

I think before any major purchase it is important to seek out reviews and opinions but that being said...buy what you like..I purchased a Panerai for the fack the reviewer said the font was to large..and for me it was a perfect tool watch I could actually SEE it!! JMO

Better would be to score out of 10. At 5 people probably find it hard to score down , there is finer descriptive ability in an out of 10 score.

Or just not score. If the prose is clear and the review is eloquent, one shouldn’t even need to put a number against it. People can’t be trusted.

I like the score system. 

" People can't be trusted"  ?  I mean that's pretty much a given I guess but  if that's the case why bother even reading what they say? 

In case they say something interesting… I live in hope

With my YouTube reviews I always try to look at the positive as I don’t want to alienate any of my viewers who may own the watches but I always speak the truth. If it comes out of my mouth it’s something I believe but I think I have more honor to my word than most these days. Some brands I have bashed hard like Movado and movement they are both trash brands with trash ownership. If something on a watch was inheriently bad I would definitely cover it but at a certain price point most things are going to be good such as finishing, detail, comfort, movement specs. What’s really going to be different is design and brand history

Adding to the chorus here that, yes, watch reviews are massively misleading in that they focus on subjective nitpicks of design and price while ignoring deal-breaker issues like reliability and quality.

Also, I had a Mark XX and the jumping minute hand issue is real, both when the crown is pulled out AND when it’s pushed back in. There’s a workaround (turning the crown back and then forward before setting) but for a not-very-accurate 3-hand movement in a $5000 watch, it’s an unforgivable glitch that they refused to repair. My Mark also had to go back to IWC for service for a different movement issue (running -20/day) and also for a bent second-hand. Sold the watch and happy to be done with IWC forever.

Sorry for the delay, but thanks for replying. Your comments make me realize that I dodged a bullet by not buying the Mark XX.