While I agree with the logic behind Ulysses' words, my short response is: "So what? Why do I need a watch that will last 100 years?"
Fashion watches ARE disposable, and I think that's the point. Now certainly that makes for an expensive, wasteful hobby, but that's where personal responsibility and moderation come in - and simply knowing how to live within one's means.
I mean I hear you (Ulysses) that most Invicta, for instance, are dated when you take them out of the box. Certainly I have a hard time imagining people wearing Venoms and Capsules 20 years from now, except as a retro thing. But again, so what?
But there's a balance. I don't think anyone wants to buy a watch and be done with it after two weeks. And, to be honest, that has happened with me - especially with Invictas. But I've also found that style preferences come and go. Right now I'm wearing my Seiko SKA425, which is quite outrageous - even ugly - in styling. When I first saw it back in November I loved it and ordered it almost immediately from Italy. When I got it I liked it a bit less than the image in my mind (which is usually the case), but still loved it. Then I found myself wearing it less and less, preferring the more classic Black Monster or SSC015. Then I discovered Orient and my SKA425 was left unworn for a few months.
A few weeks ago I noticed that the SKA425 had stopped (its kinetic). In order to get it going again I wore it once a week or so, but that didn't do the trick, so a few days ago I decided to give it some real love and have been wearing it ever since. I had resigned myself to the idea that while I loved the look of it, I just wasn't going to wear it much. But since putting it on - and the point of this detour - is that I've rediscovered my love for this watch.
And here's the real point: What we feed will grow. If we feed the idea that we like this or that style, that notion will grow and we'll like this or that style. A few months ago I was feeding the notion that the more expensive the watch, the better my enjoyment of it. I realized that this was a bad direction to take, or at least one that I personally couldn't go on with my limited finances (being a teacher). So I took a step back and weened myself off watch-buying, at least for a few months.
While everyone has their own individual sweetspot, I think, as a general rule, that the optimum place to be is being able to enjoy what you have, but also willing and able to take in newness, but in a sustainable way. This is different for everyone. For me what it means is (re)learning how to like <$300 watches and buying one every few months, selling older ones off as I go. Anything more than that and I'll both go bankrupt and not truly enjoy what I have. Anything much less and, well, it stops being a hobby and a means of enjoyment.
Someone over at Watchlords advised me to sell all of my cheap watches and keep my very best one or two, then gradually work my way up the ladder, sort of like starting at a company and working your way up, position by position. The idea being, "quality over quantity." But the problem there is that it doesn't allow for diversity (and it focuses on the monetary aspect of "quality"). So my personal philosophy is, yes, quality over quantity, but in the context of diversity.
I think where Herculodge is coming from, or at least where I feel the same way (so will speak for myself), is that Invicta scratches a certain itch that other companies don't. Seiko doesn't make Venoms or Capsules or Subaqua Specialty Reserves. Now maybe those are all gaudy, even a bit silly, and none will be true and certified classics, but they're outrageous, unique and FUN. And I think that's all a "fashion watch" needs to be.
Oh yeah, and they tell time just fine - even without the spring drive!