Jonny writes:
Someone on Watchlords had a good formula in terms of value for quality, vs. brand name heritage and luxury cachet. He said it went like this: Micro-brands > Seiko/Citizen > Swiss/German brands. Meaning, the micros offer the best value in terms of quality, with Seiko/Citizen next. A lot of what you are paying for with the Swiss/German brands is the heritage and cachet.
To put it another way, a micro that costs a grand might be similar in quality to a $1,500 Seiko and a $3,000 Omega. That might not be the right formula–there isn’t really a formula–but you get the general idea.
So yeah, a $475 Boschett might be more similar in quality to an $800 Seiko than the $600 Sumo. Or, at the least, the Boschett and the Sumo are similar in quality in terms of movement, but the Boschett has superior build, clasp, bracelet, etc.
This is why for myself, who cares nothing of name brands and only a bit of heritage, the ultimate watch is a $4,000 Seiko and not an $8,000 Panerai or a $12,000 Rolex. It is also why I’m drawn more and more to micro-brands, because you get all sorts of intriguing possibilities. Prometheus is another example – the Baiji, which costs $400 new, feels like a thousand dollar watch.
I'm somewhat fixated on "micros" right now (check out the Zenton on my blog). As I wrote there, it seems there's a sweet spot in the range of about $800-1200 where you're really getting something akin to a higher end watch but for significantly less. But the main thing with micros is that you see a wide range of artistry - some really interesting stuff (e.g. Boschett, Prometheus, Zenton, etc).
If I can convince myself to slow waaaay down with the ~$200 purchases, I might save up and get a Sumo in a month or two and then, if I can go without new watches for all (or at least most!) of the summer, get myself a Zenton or Seiko Tuna or other $800-1200 watch in the Fall.
But plans, and tastes, change, so we'll see.
Posted by: jonnybardo | February 20, 2013 at 08:47 AM
It's interesting to me that the micro brands can provide more watch for the money than a player like Citizen. I totally understand that Rolex or other established "luxury" brands will actually artificially inflate their pricing to maintain their status of offering exclusively "unattainable for most" watches. But for someone like Citizen----I would think their buying power (so many more watches produced) would enable them to source good components for far less than the microbrands----and they could also sell them for less profit since they'd presumably be selling so many more units----economies of scale on both manufacturing and selling.
Posted by: Angelo | February 20, 2013 at 10:35 AM
I agree, Angelo. I'm not entirely sure that formula is correct. It may be that micros and Seiko/Citizen provide about equal value. I've certainly found that no one makes watches in the $200-500 range like those two companies; micros seem to start at around $400.
Posted by: jonnybardo | February 20, 2013 at 12:24 PM
Of course, it's also possible that the micros operate on low profit margins----fewer employees, no real advertising budget, modest offices----they might just be people who are passionate about building their idea of a great watch and scratching out a living.
Posted by: Angelo | February 20, 2013 at 04:59 PM
On the other hand, the bigger, more established brands are more likely to be in business down the road, should parts or repairs be needed.
Posted by: Gary | February 20, 2013 at 05:18 PM
Any ideas on Christopher Ward, seems like some elegant stuff without the too crazy pricetag?
Posted by: Conniesdad | February 22, 2013 at 01:52 PM
Call me wind because I am blown away by your post!BY - Bulova accutron
Posted by: Stevepaul8 | February 28, 2013 at 03:09 AM