Analogue quartzes - tell tale signs of the cheap and nasty.
Quartzes are generally cheaper than mechanical watches. But there comes a point when corners are cut too far, which is rather subjective. Where is from your perspective the cut-off point that separates good value from cheap and nasty - I do not mean the price, I mean attributes of the watch itself.
The depicted Xinew was super-cheap, and so some corner were cut. The case was probably made from some resin, the hands got precariously loose whenever the crown was engaged. Watchband was poor. The attachment of the backplate to the case seemed untrustworthy - not so much a problem with this watch, but another Xinew of mine sported a backplate that preferred separation from its case. Looking across a variety of cheap quartzes I bought, I would say that how the crown engages with the hands is the biggest separator, but you may not see it that way.
29 comments
Sort by
Balthazar
UK-based German expat. Likes cheap watches. Not bothered about brands.
Member since
Last active: 55 secs ago
I can change a strap easily. And the crown won’t be used often. So a quartz watch must have good design and build quality to be favored.
Yease for the cheapy quartz since they so infrequently need setting & I can change a strap, the corner that needs to be least cut is the case & construction
#1 for me, seconds hand hits between the markers
These days you can find watches with a 316L stainless steel case and bracelet for sub $50 so there is no excuse for making a watch in plastic - sorry "bioceramic" 😂 - in my opinion.
These days you can find watches with a 316L stainless steel case and bracelet for sub $50 so there is no excuse for making a watch in plastic - sorry "bioceramic" 😂 - in my opinion.
For $50, I expect pretty darn good quality in a quartz - especially when I buy from AliExpress. The real cost-cutting starts there around the $15 mark. Below $2, and the case material is the least of your problems; that Xinew was about $1.
Materials and build quality. A good quartz movement (Seiko, ETA, Ronda, or equivalent), stainless steel case, sapphire crystal. If a corner is to be cut then I’d prefer it be on the bracelet or strap that I can easily upgrade.
Cheap is relative, especially on here. I have several cheap casio and timex quartz watches I'm happy with
Seconds hand has to be correct, it will drive me nuts if it is not on a quartz.
Materials used is pretty important as I stopped wearing watches for a long time because the ones I was getting (the ones I could afford other than Casio) were built poorly. When I was younger I got into the hobby for a bit but most of the cheap watches I had failed from a combination of hard use and poor build quality. One time I had the 2 marker fall out of place and get stuck between the hour and minute hands which caused the movement to be stuck. Teenage me should’ve bought a gshock instead, didn’t wear a watch for a while because of the failures
Nasty quartzes, what has it gots in its pocketses?
I think it’s spelled “Xenu”. Anyway, here’s a depiction:
All of the above plus the dial and opening the case back and finding a movement the size of a nut.
Oops, I thought that B said watch brand instead of band.
C is the only one I really care about. Plastic or even pot metal is fine for what it is. It has advantages. Bands are all crap below a certain, suprisingly high, price and they can almost always be upgraded.
The loosey-goosey crown is terrible. It feels cheap, but this also tends to mean great difficulty in setting with any accuracy. If pushing the crown in tends to slap the minute hand any perceptible amount, that is a problem for anyone with standards.
Interesting. The hands on Rolex movements have a surprisingly large amount of "slack", i.e. when you start turning the crown the hands don't turn instantly. It isn't terribble but certainly isn't as precise as on the ETA or Seiko movements I have. I don't really mind that as long as they turn properly while keeping time.
A strange metal case on a modern watch to me is a very clear sign of extreme cost cutting. Stainless steel has gotten so cheap to machine there is absolutely no excuse.
Interesting. The hands on Rolex movements have a surprisingly large amount of "slack", i.e. when you start turning the crown the hands don't turn instantly. It isn't terribble but certainly isn't as precise as on the ETA or Seiko movements I have. I don't really mind that as long as they turn properly while keeping time.
A strange metal case on a modern watch to me is a very clear sign of extreme cost cutting. Stainless steel has gotten so cheap to machine there is absolutely no excuse.
I'd assume the machining is more the expense than the material.
I'm surprised that there is gear train play in Rolex. I'd imagine there is a benefit to a slight amount, as this is a cushion against damage on impact, but unless I'm missing something it also means backlash or wiggle, slop which result in apparent imprecision at times.
I have a Timex with a coated brass(?) case, but they were honest about it and the surface treatment looks interesting/appropriate; similarly I have no issue with plastics or resins in designs where that makes sense. And I'm more forgiving about cheap watch + cheap bracelet than I am about expensive watch + standard bracelet. Basically for me, a lot of watches come down to, "if it works, it works!" There's all sorts of alchemies between materials, design, or purpose/intent/memory that can make a corners-cut object into something really great.
But it's difficult for any combination of elements to come back from a first impression marred by a misaligned seconds hand.
I'd assume the machining is more the expense than the material.
I'm surprised that there is gear train play in Rolex. I'd imagine there is a benefit to a slight amount, as this is a cushion against damage on impact, but unless I'm missing something it also means backlash or wiggle, slop which result in apparent imprecision at times.
I was a bit surprised but it seems normal on the 31xx generation at least. The 3185 GMT, where the hour hand doesn't aling perfectly with the markers and wobbles when it's being set, seems worse than the 3135. To be fair, you wouldn't notice unless you specifically look for it (as I did) and they did address some of this with the 3186 update.
On my regular 3 handers, even new movements, there is some play when setting the watch but once it starts running I have not noticed any inconsistency in the alignment. Hard to describe, like the gears are of a different size. It's likely by design and might even serve a purpose but either way, it doesn't feel "expensive".
A and C
I marked A but I have bought very nice cheap chinese quartz watches with nondescript metal alloys that are fantastic. As always, materials should be used in the way appropriate to them. And let’s not forget that Timex is selling a lot of “nasty” nickel-plated brass cases that are fine. I think for me it’s just the whole package. I have a cheap cheap cheap Sanda-branded watch that is great and eye-catching. The case is some alloy, but they milled out a chamber in it, with the movement dial hands and crystal inserted through the front opening and a hole drilled and tapped in the back for the battery to be changed. It’s not waterproof but it’s basically bombproof, lol. Pretty clever way of making cheap usable watches. I also like that they leave the seconds hand off of it. Seconds hands in the cheapest analog quartz movements are often imprecise. And for like $8 who cares? lol
All of the choices to which I can add second's hands that never hit their markers, pressed down case backs, and tiny crowns that are impossible to operate.
I was a bit surprised but it seems normal on the 31xx generation at least. The 3185 GMT, where the hour hand doesn't aling perfectly with the markers and wobbles when it's being set, seems worse than the 3135. To be fair, you wouldn't notice unless you specifically look for it (as I did) and they did address some of this with the 3186 update.
On my regular 3 handers, even new movements, there is some play when setting the watch but once it starts running I have not noticed any inconsistency in the alignment. Hard to describe, like the gears are of a different size. It's likely by design and might even serve a purpose but either way, it doesn't feel "expensive".
It dawned on me that this is likely nothing to do with gears and purely a deliberate buffer at the stem, sort of like that rubber dampener inside a vehicle tire that softens the lash of what would otherwise be a direct hard connection. Given the virtual impossibility of pushing or pulling a crown without imparting some tad of rotation, it makes sense.
This may also be along the lines of the jiggly crown on the Vostok Amphibia where it serves a universal joint function to prevent damage from side loads.
I'm guessing that @catskinner objects to snap back cases because they tend to offer 50m max water resistance. My only gripe would be that when they get really crudded up there is the risk of bending them like a bottle cap during removal, which has no perfect fix. That they can usually be removed without any special tools is a plus for me. I stared using butter knives and my Walmart pocket watch (super loose and insecure adjustment feel BTW) can now be popped off by fingernail.
I just won’t bother with cheap n nasty watches . Been there done that . I like quartz but servicable quartz….
If it's cheaper than a Duro I'm suspicious. The Duro is my benchmark for a cheap watch.
If it's cheaper than a Duro I'm suspicious. The Duro is my benchmark for a cheap watch.
That's a bit simplistic. Is Daniel Wellington safe from your suspicions - these cost more than a Duro? IMHO you can get watches of much better quality than a DW on AliExpress for about half the price of a Duro.
That's a bit simplistic. Is Daniel Wellington safe from your suspicions - these cost more than a Duro? IMHO you can get watches of much better quality than a DW on AliExpress for about half the price of a Duro.
Not really what I meant. The Duro is my benchmark. If the Duro can cost £50 a watch costing £50+ must be better than a Duro for me to be interested. If it costs less I have doubts it will be good enough.
Potentially all of the above! For me, it is simply overall build quality that counts.
It's certainly not the band/strap. You can buy quite expensive watches - regardless of them being quartz or automatic - and the band/strap can be absolute pure crap. So that should never, ever be the sole guide, or the main guide, to whether a watch is decent or not.
It's certainly not the band/strap. You can buy quite expensive watches - regardless of them being quartz or automatic - and the band/strap can be absolute pure crap. So that should never, ever be the sole guide, or the main guide, to whether a watch is decent or not.
I didn't mean sole guide: I meant, what - with the concrete watches you have found out there - is the most reliable indicator (the tell-tale sign of the title) that tells you the quality overall is dodgy.
Although the strap can usually be replaced [the operational word here is "usually"], I had watches that were connected at the hip to the case, with no realistic way to replace it.
I didn't mean sole guide: I meant, what - with the concrete watches you have found out there - is the most reliable indicator (the tell-tale sign of the title) that tells you the quality overall is dodgy.
Although the strap can usually be replaced [the operational word here is "usually"], I had watches that were connected at the hip to the case, with no realistic way to replace it.
I wouldn't support ANY watch that can't have its band removed, nor do I support integrated bands (which often can be removed, but replacements are sometimes confined to coming from the watchmaker only).
I wouldn't support ANY watch that can't have its band removed, nor do I support integrated bands (which often can be removed, but replacements are sometimes confined to coming from the watchmaker only).
Well, yes, but I had at least one watch where this came as a surprise/shock. That is: the pics of the product listing did not suggest that the strap was unreplacable.