Is it worth spending or owning a luxury watch?

[StillShaving]

I ask this question a bit tongue in cheek and a bit out of truly being ignorant, but what defines a luxury watch? Is it price, exclusivity, brand cachet, or one that uses a traditional mechanical mechanism? I have bought a few inexpensive watches lately, but have ignored luxury brands due to cost. I would pay a few hundred dollars for the right watch with the right styling (I am still looking for a Bernhardt GMT, even though the styling is not my favorite), but can't imagine owning some of the watches being discussed here.

I ask because it seems that traits like better time keeping accuracy, lighter weight, slimness, looks, and ease of maintenance are traits that would otherwise be considered as luxury and are available in lower end quartz watches. Does the personality of a traditional mechanical watch override these factors?

[little Big feather]

I think it's a $$ figure to most...I have a Rolex and most consider it a 'luxury watch' but I don't...To me it's a 'tool'.Quartz are more accurate, until they fail.
A good watch is a personal thing....A watch can tell allot about the man wearing it. Once, a very long time ago the watch I wore made me and the company
I worked for allot of money. The buyer of a Major co. bought from my co. because he felt I knew what I was talking about because I wore a Rolex...... A mech. watch has a heart..It beats. Take it off, it runs down, it sleeps...until you wind it. I have quartz watches too but I prefer
my mechs......All those little gears,cogs,wheels....meshing and spinning...It's so cool! If you get anything from this thread, I hope you get this...Don't get a watch
because it's what others like...Get what you LOVE...Get the watch that 'sings' to you. In a nut shell...'Luxury' to one person is $200.00, to another $20,000.00.
'Luxury watch' to me is the watch that makes you happy, makes you smile when you look at it...To me luxury is a joy ......IMHO

[Rjacklin]

You can tell one thing from looking at a mans watch, his financial status. In all reality though, it is the one piece of jewelry that I wear other than my wedding ring. They are an investment but most luxury watches hold value. I decided on a Breitling seawolf for my first watch and dont regret it one bit!

[DukeGrad]

gentlemen

1 tag is a nice watch but swatch does their movement
2 Bond wears a omega!!
again the history for in house movements and watch made there leaves very few alive and kicking.
Please read my not regarding early A lang Sonne in Glashutte and IWC in its early years . iwc evolved out of one maker well known
These watches are beautiful
There are a few maybe 3/5 that does it the old way make owm watch and in houseovememy, most are in Glashutte Germany
You will be shocked what swiss luxury makers are outsourcing
Blancpain/brequet are
You have to be careful and do more research
the comment nout the steinhart is true you are right, but it is a cheap recommendation to the others
I have rrcommend German because the indusyry started there and you can not find a finet watchnthst is there now

Nice weekend
Jim

[gegarrenton]

gentlemen

1 tag is a nice watch but swatch does their movement
2 Bond wears a omega!!
again the history for in house movements and watch made there leaves very few alive and kicking.
Please read my not regarding early A lang Sonne in Glashutte and IWC in its early years . iwc evolved out of one maker well known
These watches are beautiful
There are a few maybe 3/5 that does it the old way make owm watch and in houseovememy, most are in Glashutte Germany
You will be shocked what swiss luxury makers are outsourcing
Blancpain/brequet are
You have to be careful and do more research
the comment nout the steinhart is true you are right, but it is a cheap recommendation to the others
I have rrcommend German because the indusyry started there and you can not find a finet watchnthst is there now

Nice weekend
Jim

As I said before, ETA (Swatch) makes most movements in all these brands. Omega is Swatch. TAG does indeed makes some of their own movements, several award winning ones actually.

ETA movements can be anything from basic to as good as it gets. I understand the in house ideal, I personally love in house, but it's no sign of inferiority for a house to use ETA, it was de facto law for a long time.

[AverageJoe]

Depends on your priorities and why you want one. For me, the cheap Casios (which used to be $10.00----NEW!!) are all I really need. Totally waterproof, accurate, day, date, alarm. I even like the 'matte black tech look'. I still have one of these and bought a 'G-Shock' as well. If the 'tactical look' isn't for you, you might think differently. I buy my watches strictly for their function, and I happen to think they look pretty cool too. I don't care if they're not 'elite, unique, rare, or expensive', so it works for me!! They run about forever, too. If $$$ was no object, sure I might buy a pricier one.

[djmike523]

I am thinking of getting one, but not sure if it's really worth the investment. . . .

It's different if it was jewelry, since it holds it's value pretty well imo. And less to zero maintenance also.

I was thinking of treating myself to a Omega Seamaster pro. 300m.

What do you guys think? Is it worth the investment? Decisions, decisions. When I was young, I do wish I had either a rolex or an omega. But now that I can afford the latter, I just can't pull the trigger.

In 1969 I bought my Rolex GMT for $250.00 today that watch is worth $3,000.00.
You tell me...Is it worth it?

IMO: don't treat it as an investment. If you do, you will most likely be disappointed; the value will drop. (I do not agree with you at all on jewelry, unless somehow you are buying precious metals at market price; but, that is neither here nor there.)

Regarding the Rolex: it's valuable now (doubled the inflation rate since purchased in '69) in the same vein as 50's mod stuff is. Or Danish mod. Or Arts & Crafts Movement pieces, etc. . . . Simply stated, it's popular in the present. (Simply look at high-quality sleeper brands like used Girard Perregaux or properly dated Gruen, etc... watches) And/or, it's become popular so it's more of a luxury brand. And/or it's solid gold that has fared very well on the market.

Ultimately there are many variables at play. Your proposed Omega Seamaster is mass produced by the hundreds of thousands and it employs the same, generic movement as many lesser cost watches. BUT SO WHAT?! It looks darn nice, functions properly, and many people can recognize it as a quality, albeit 'designer' piece. If you like it, BUY IT! But, don't expect a mass-produced, generic movement driven, steel-braceleted wrist watch to be an 'investment.'

[ProMultis]

IMO, I would never purchase a watch as an investment. I have several automatics, but I never purchased them thinking they'd be good investments. I simply liked them. I also don't think of them as "luxury" watches, just because they are more expensive. On the contrary, automatics simply cost more because of their movements; they don't cost more because they represent more luxury. I'm an automatic guy; I love the sweep second hand, the glass back, the visible movement, and can really appreciate the precision craftsmanship.

My personal preference is: simpler is better. I don't go for chronographs, and I don't go for divers. The bezels on divers are too conspicuous, and I don't like the cluttered face and additional buttons of Chronographs...besides, who uses the chronograph function these days, anyway?

I currently wear an Oris F1 with a rubber strap. The bezel is a simple stainless design, and the face is simple and understated. It runs about $1200.

I'm currently looking at Ball watches. The scroll numerals on the "60 Second" and "Power Reserve" models are exquisite, and I especially like the way the minute hand extends to the edge of the digits.

...just my personal opinion...

[Doc4]

... what defines a luxury watch? Is it price, exclusivity, brand cachet, or one that uses a traditional mechanical mechanism?


I ask because it seems that traits like better time keeping accuracy, lighter weight, slimness, looks, and ease of maintenance are traits that would otherwise be considered as luxury and are available in lower end quartz watches. Does the personality of a traditional mechanical watch override these factors?

[QUOTE=little Big feather;4357126]I think it's a $$ figure to most...I have a Rolex and most consider it a 'luxury watch' but I don't...To me it's a 'tool'./QUOTE]

A "luxury watch" is one that is out of your price range. (Kind of like the "if you have to ask how much it costs" rule of thumb about luxury yachts.)

In all seriousness, a "luxury watch" is generally going to be considered one for which the buyer pays more ... often a lot more ... for the cachet and exclusivity of a well-known brand, often with extravagant add-ons for decoration. The bus driver who wears a $50 Timex who drives me to the shopping mall will think my $300 Seiko quartz is a luxury watch, and for me it's the Rolex & Panerai & Tag Hauer watches I see and don't bother trying on ... and for the guys who wear those watches it's the $30,000 IWCs and so forth.

No one thinks that he himself is wearing a 'luxury watch' ... unless we're talking about 50 Cent who wants to show off how much bling he has. Or Donald Trump.

[JustAnotherDude]

IMO treat any mechanical "luxury watch" strictly as a jewelry purchase.

From a functional standpoint, as watches per se, they just can't compare to an $18 digital. They're less accurate, weigh several times as much, and have less functionality (no alarm, no stopwatch, etc.). As implements, they are inferior.

So basically, if you're looking at a mechanical luxury watch, act as if you're purchasing a piece of jewelry: how does it look on you, does it fit your personal sense of style, is it appropriate for the social settings you frequent, will it be sufficiently impressive to the people you want to impress with it, does it make for a good conversation piece, etc.

You can tell one thing from looking at a mans watch, his financial status.

No, actually, you can tell - to some degree - the social class that man aspires to from what watch they choose. But that doesn't necessarily mean their financial status matches. They could be wearing an expensive watch that they can't really afford. Or they could be a frugal, high-earning and high-saving person wearing a watch from WalMart (or dad's hand-me-down) while having enough financial independence retire from work at age 45. The millionaire next door, who likely owns a machine shop or a fleet of rental houses, might not wear a Rolex.

Edited for tone and clarity.

[StillShaving]

I think the last couple of posts are quite insightful. About how one man's luxury watch might be ordinary to the next guy. And how one can not judge a person's station in life by their watch (or any other personal belonging).

To the extent that I have an opinion, my take is that a luxury watch is one that is somewhat exclusive but foremost it must be durable, lightweight, and function very well with high accuracy and minimal fuss. I will not buy one, but the new solar powered Seiko Astron GPS is a luxury watch to me.

[JustAnotherDude]

I'm of the opinion that "table stakes" in the modern luxury watch game are a watch with an automatic winding mechanical movement of at least 17 jewels and a designation as a chronograph. A watch without those isn't "good enough" for luxury. The number of complications is secondary.

Keep in mind that an older watch could still be collectible without having the qualifications for a modern luxury watch.

[Mad Man]

Mechanical watches (automatics) that also qualify as chronometers are the DE equivalent to the quartz "Mach 3".

I don't use a cartridge anymore - I won't wear a quartz. YMMV.

[Doc4]

I'm of the opinion that "table stakes" in the modern luxury watch game are a watch with an automatic winding mechanical movement of at least 17 jewels and a designation as a chronograph. A watch without those isn't "good enough" for luxury. The number of complications is secondary.

Keep in mind that an older watch could still be collectible without having the qualifications for a modern luxury watch.

Stick enough diamonds on a Timex, and it's a luxury watch.

Most luxury watches will, as it happens, meet your criteria, and IMHO one is ill-advised to buy a watch that expensive if it doesn't meet them. But really, the "luxury" bit is not about the quality of the innards ... that's a happy coincidence ... but about the bling and prestige ... the artistry and craftsmanship, if you want to be less scathing ... of the brand and the specific watch.

The WIS who buys a luxury watch may count the jewels and the +/- seconds/year timekeeping, but they are a tiny minority ... most people who buy them count the jewels ... on the outside.

[JustAnotherDude]

I don't use a cartridge anymore - I won't wear a quartz. YMMV.

There's a big difference.

I sometimes shave with an SE because it does a BETTER job than the NEW technology. FWIW never used cartridges, maybe once or twice as a teenager, pretty much been a single-blade disposable Bic man most of my life.

I only wear cheap digital watches for the same reason; they do a BETTER job than the OLD technology.

For me it's less about the anachronistic impact than it is about functionality. And I'm not much of a jewelry horse.

[Mad Man]

There's a big difference.

I sometimes shave with an SE because it does a BETTER job than the NEW technology. FWIW never used cartridges, maybe once or twice as a teenager, pretty much been a single-blade disposable Bic man most of my life.

I only wear cheap digital watches for the same reason; they do a BETTER job than the OLD technology

For me it's less about the anachronistic impact than it is about functionality. And I'm not much of a jewelry horse.

That's the point exactly Dude. If it was ONLY functionality I'd stick with a cheap digital, and shave with a cart. I'd buy my suits off the rack and loafers from K Mart.

Maybe it's my age but I've gotten to the point where I want to wear or use items that make me feel a certain way. Sure a digital watch tells the time in the same way a "luxury" watch does...in the same way a cartridge efficiently shaves (apart from bumps etc) compared to the time investment required with a straight, SE or DE (sorry, I've still to buy into the whole 10-minute wet shave).

I'm certainly not a jewelry horse either. I wear a simple gold wedding band and a 16610 Sub. That's it. Nothing else. No otter chains, rings, bracelets...nada!

I wear things for me. That make me feel good. I still get asked if my watch is real and have a couple of stock responses that either make the person asking laugh, nod or walk away. I also don't judge anyone based on THEIR watches either.

My late father in law NEVER wore a watch, still dressed in overalls at 65 (builder by trade) and only carried cash. Yet the people who met him wouldn't have guessed he had a 20k + Panerai locked in a safety deposit box.

In answer to the original thread question; if you have to ask...then don't buy one. And don't judge others on whether they do or don't.

YMMV

[RavenWood]

I set a goal for myself in my career a couple years ago, and my reward was a Movado Fiero Tungsten. I have never regretted it. I only wear it on special occasions, like the symphony, or backyard BBQ's, or anniversary dinners, or my birthday, or job interviews. I think just wearing it gives me a special feeling akin to shaving with a straight razor. Even if people don't know, I do!, And just that knowledge gives me confidence and pride...

[JustAnotherDude]

That's the point exactly Dude. If it was ONLY functionality I'd stick with a cheap digital, and shave with a cart. I'd buy my suits off the rack and loafers from K Mart.
..

YMMV

Yes it does.

For me, ONLY functionality means cheap digital watches and NO cartridges because IMO they don't do a good job. Suits off the rack, but tailored to fit properly. Casual kicks are from the Wally-World, they're the knock-offs of the Converse. Dress shoes are Dan Post boots and yes, they've been re-soled a couple of times. Our wedding bands are actually stainless steel.

Back to the subject of lux watches ...

It's pretty much accepted, I think, that digitals and digital/analog aren't "luxury." Cases are metal and substantial in size (leaving aside the issue of adornment), and bands are leather or metal.

Which means as watches per se, luxury watches aren't very functional, because mechanical movements aren't as accurate (although for most of us it'd be hard to discern the difference), they require manual input to change dates on odd months or leap years, they need to be worn regularly (automatic wind) or wound regularly as opposed to the battery replacement every few years, and they don't have chimes, stopwatches, ease of synchronization (few analogs outside military/tactical watches have the 'zero the second hand' feature), alarms, etc.

Since they suck as watches, it's obvious that their reason for existence is as jewelry.

Hence, consider your purchase of a luxury watch as being a jewelry purchase, graded the same way any woman might grade her jewelry purchase:

does it suit my style and flatter my appearance?
does it fit the social settings (and my social class!) in the venues where I'll be wearing it?
(keep in mind, this may mean I need to own more than one luxury watch)
will the people I want to impress, be sufficiently impressed by this watch's appearance and/or brand cache?
is it a collectible or investment piece?
is it a conversation starter?
etc.

Basically a luxury watch is just an expensive bracelet, one of the few old-school mainstream everyday acceptable jewelry options for men (outside the wedding ring and maybe a graduation ring such as A&M or some other school with similar tradition). They differ from so-called "fashion watches" basically only in movement (fashion watches are typically quartz) and price/quality of materials, but fashion watches have a similar checklist, they are also a jewelry purchase a.k.a. "costume jewelry".

Grade a luxury watch purpose as a woman grades a jewelry purchase, and you won't go wrong.

[little Big feather]

Dude...You really are in the dark.
Be in a combat situation, and your battery dies...NO WATCH!! That doesn't happen with old technology..That's why most soldiers of the world use
old technology...A different slant...A Rolls Royce salesman once told me "Any motor car can get you from point A to point B, in a Rolls Royce it's
about how you arrive at point B"..... I'm 64 and I have seen and done many things and I tell you now..The trip is over when you arrive and I know how
to arrive, I advise you to learn how...It's a short trip to your end.

[Mad Man]

Dude,

It's a rather binary way of viewing things - either function or jewelry. And when you say a luxury watch isn't functional I'm interested in how you would define a watch such as a Submariner or Seamaster which are designed for divers (some have an extending bracelet to accommodate a wetsuit) and can "function" at depths of 1000' or more. Based on price - and your definition - both would qualify as jewelry yet I know of friends who are in the military who carry Subs, or Breitling Navitimers or GMTs (and other "luxury" watches) who would argue vehemently as to them being jewelry....and who could care less about status or social situations.

It sounds and reads to me as if you allow no middle-ground, no in-between - I'm either a utilitarian interested only in function or a vacuous Him-Bo wanting a piece of impressive jewelry to impress and get recognized. Or am I reading it wrong?

Apologies for the above if it's a bit forward; I'm a guy who doesn't like to deal in absolutes...to each their own and YMMV.