Jonny writes:
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!
Ha ha, sorry for the novel there. You might want to note that I wrote it, and not you - otherwise people might mistake you for a windbag.
Posted by: jonnybardo | July 09, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Sorry, Jonny, for forgetting to attribute your authorship. Great conversation between you and Ulysses. Attribute now corrected.
Posted by: herculodge | July 09, 2013 at 01:51 PM
Beautiful radio
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Grundig-Minerva-RS-800-AM-FM-Shortwave-Radio-/261243527084
Posted by: Paul | July 09, 2013 at 03:19 PM
I agree with most of that, Jonny---people know I wear a lot of different watches, including some relatively expensive ones, like a Movado I have----and in fact, if we stand back from this blog (and other watch enthusiasts blogs), it's interesting to note that for most people, one hundred dollars is considered outrageous to spend on a watch. I have a sister-in-law who is certainly not poor----travels to Europe frequently, goes on Alaskan and other expensive cruises, has a nice home, etc.----and gets her watches from Target, from a table----not even out of the display case. Probably spends less than twenty bucks. Wears the watch until the battery quits and gets a new watch. There are many others like her----and if they spend $50.00 on a watch, it's a splurge. So when I wear a big Tauchmeister and it's spotted as unique and expensive looking----I might say "It was under $150.00 and they think that's an outrageous purchase----while people like you, Jeff and Ulysses would think it was the low side of what you would buy----that 200 or 300 is a more reasonable amount to spend. It's all relative. And back to the main point----people I know, co-workers, friends, business contacts, etc.----look at my wrist when they see me, wondering what I have on that day. It could be the $500.00 Movado that I wore to a wedding last weekend. Or, it could be a '70s era Timex that I bought on E-Bay for around $20.00----a funky looking thing with a spherical crystal and wide chrome bezel----funky to say the least. It could be the Womage BMW knock-off that's a cheap E-Bay import or it could be one of my Tauchmeister/Aeromatic favorites. It's nice to have a deep bench, even if some of the watches are worn very infrequently. The best part? Well, I met a very attractive woman who works at the mall kiosk where you can get new watch batteries installed. I don't know much about her yet----she's very young and for all I know, has a boyfriend (or girlfriend, who knows?). We had a great conversation yesterday----and I told her I'd be back today in need of another battery (I think I have an old Timex Indiglo with a dead battery that I can take in). She told me the days that she works. With all of these watches, I almost always have one that needs a battery----plenty of excuses to go to that mall to talk to her! And how can you not like a sexy girl who can have your watch apart in seconds and knows how to keep the water-tight gasket in place when she reassembles it? She can probably even get me discounts on new crystals or repairs!
Posted by: Angelo | July 10, 2013 at 04:43 AM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves Angelo. Take it slow and don't act too eager. Ha ha.
Anyhow, yeah, its all relative. For years I would spend maybe $30-50 on a watch. Then, only a little over two years ago, my watch obsession started. At first I didn't want to break the $100 barrier. I started looking at Invictas and Pulsars in the under $100 range. Then I broke the $100 barrier and my price limit was around $150. And then, early last summer, I broke the $200 barrier, then $300 in the fall. This winter I went way beyond that and spent almost $500 on the Sumo and $700 on my Orient Saturation Diver. At that point I thought I'd never spend less than $300-400 on a watch again.
I realized I was in trouble so backed off, going on a spending fast for a few months, selling some watches off. But more importantly, I re-calibrated my tastes and price point. I'm again looking at $300 as a cap, albeit a soft one that I would surpass in the right situation. But there are plenty of great watches in the $150-300 range.
This isn't to deny the tiers in quality, but that the quality of a watch isn't the only factor in my enjoyment. I kind of lost sight of that for a bit and, it would seem, most folks at a place like Watchlords have completely lost sight of this.
It is simple logic that the person who can enjoy the whole spectrum is better off than the person who only enjoys the upper ends. This is akin to what we could call the "escalating pleasure principle" that often afflicts the wealthy.
I'll be honest, though. If I were a multi-millionaire I probably wouldn't buy many $200 watches. Maybe one or two with a unique style. But my "low-end" would probably be micro-brand divers in the $800-1200 range, and I'd be spending thousands on Oris, Omega, high-end Seiko, Breitling, etc. Beyond about 5K I think the differences become so small and chimeric that I probably wouldn't bother, but there's no denying the difference in craftsmanship between an Omega Seamaster and just about any watch under a grand. The problem, though, with your typical "watch snob" is that that's all they see.
Posted by: jonnybardo | July 10, 2013 at 07:10 AM
Jonny: She wasn't nearly as friendly today. Maybe the Aeromatic I brought in yesterday impressed her----but the Indiglo I brought in today made me look like a clown. I don't know. There's always next time.
Posted by: Angelo | July 10, 2013 at 08:34 AM
Without wanting to sound too sexist, I think most women aren't really as fussed about watches as guys are, and the public in general (of either gender) wouldn't be able to tell an expensive watch from a cheap one. Best to pick something that you like wearing for yourself and accept that few others out there will recognise your sense of taste. Maybe it's because i'm European and many of these big US fashion brands have little to no presence in retail here that I am not convinced of their value. I'm seeing plenty of Invicta watches on the UK Amazon site now though, so it's changing.
That feeling you get in the hand of holding a "proper" watch is something that cannot easily be replicated by the stack'em high, sell'em low companies. I'm hoping that level of quality will filter down so that more of us can enjoy it.
Posted by: Ulysses | July 10, 2013 at 10:03 AM
This is well said, Ulysses. I didn't truly understand this feeling until I started "buying up." Even about a year ago when I checked out one of my student's Omega (which the spoiled brat thrashed and didn't take care of) I didn't get it. But since buying my Orients I have a better sense of "that feeling."
I think the sweetspot range is $500-1500 because you can start getting what are high quality, but relatively affordable, watches - like my Orient Saturation Diver which retails for %1500-2000. But I think if you look at Oris or Omega you find very fine watches that you could spend about a grand on for a used one.
Angelo, maybe she senses your hopefulness ;)
Posted by: jonnybardo | July 10, 2013 at 12:34 PM
But to address one of your other points, Ulysses, as much as I learned to love "that feeling," the higher end companies just don't make watches with the industrial science fiction vibe of an Invicta Capsule that are just plain fun.
Posted by: jonnybardo | July 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Looks like one of my comments to Ulysses and Angelo disappeared.
Posted by: jonnybardo | July 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Jonny: Either she sensed my hopefulness----or she decided that a 20-25 year age difference is too much for her!
Posted by: Angelo | July 10, 2013 at 01:57 PM
You can find the crazy space-age designs on some VERY high-priced Swiss watches but their pricing is totally delusional for what you're getting so best avoided, in which case the cheaper option is obviously preferable.
Posted by: Ulysses | July 11, 2013 at 03:15 AM
Hublot is another example of "crazy space age designs," but the price...
Posted by: jonnybardo | July 11, 2013 at 09:08 AM
Tremendous issues here. I am very happy to peer your article. Thanks a lot and I'm having a look forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?
Posted by: ladies fashion shoes | September 16, 2013 at 04:02 AM