I think some of you here and people in general simplify things too much. “Seiko is a simple and cheap watch”.
The reason we westerners, generally, hold Seiko as cheap is because that are the watches they have been able to sell here. Among Europeans and Americans, too long, there has been a notion of Japanese watches as inferior to Swiss. “Who in their right mind would buy a Seiko for as much as an Omega or a Rolex?”
Think of it - almost all manufacturers that are aspiring to span over several consumer groups have “cheap and simple” in their line - standing for the bulk of sales. Omega, apart from this last/ongoing surge to become a luxury brand only, has almost always played - the cheap - to the upper middle prized, market field. There has been the really cheap and the somewhat expensive. Sometimes with the corresponding quality but often the cheap ones proved to be sturdy and lasted for a very long time. As with Seiko - playing a large portion of the consumer field but as a brand and in Europe and America we only know the lower end of it.
I think it is funny to read all the beater testaments on the net as there are always a feeling of the owners surprise hidden somewhere in them - knowingly or unknowingly, as if the owner just do not believe a Seiko should or could work that well.
Seiko has been making high quality watches for a very, very long time. Some of them are cheap and sturdy. Just as some Omegas used to be. In the other end of the spectra there are higher prized and higher end watches - and in that segment there are no difference between Omega and Seiko - apart from it still being difficult to sell a Seiko priced as an Omega in the west. The only big difference - Omega just do not cater for the quality low end of the market anymore…
Seiko might not have had the best advertising crew (Mad men?) thru the years either:
As of watches I have these:
Used to have these:
And yes - I used to have two of these...
And do not get me started on the merits of Citizen...
