STANDY
··schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collectorI think spirits are a similar argument when you buy them by the look of the bottle instead of the quality of the drink inside you are not getting the best at the same dollar value.
No, mechanical watches are more than just fashion accessories, and for what should be obvious reasons.
A Chevy Volt and Ferrari Daytona are both personal transport vehicles, and as such, presumably comparable in your view.
I think spirits are a similar argument when you buy them by the look of the bottle instead of the quality of the drink inside you are not getting the best at the same dollar value.
And on your view a mechanical Invicta and a Patek are comparable as well if the parallel lines are to be drawn so easily. Even Gerald Genta had great....GREAT lines of quartz movement watches under his name. and the complications and build where still without a doubt masterful and high end.
I had a bronze geffica quartz and my watch maker would marvel at the movement and kept asking me to let him show it to other watch makers.
It's not a battery issue alone, or a mechanical, or a jewel count...it's the wholeness of the piece (in my view)
Everything really.
I had edited out the car comparison before you posted, but feel free to substitute a Tesla, and the analogy holds. There really is no direct comparison between electric and mechanical watches or cars.
There doesn't need to be a comparison for them both to be able to be low or high end, independent of each others core differences.
In terms of Art....
Your first assertion renders the whole exercise pointless. After all, one could then choose any sub-category of watches – say, those with Disney themes on the dial – and assert that there are low and high-end versions, and that they should be considered "independently" of Pateks, etc.
As I've pointed out previously, the exercise has no real value without setting reasonable parameters of some sort. I've done so already, and while of course people are free to disagree with them, it should be fairly obvious that including electronic movements in the discussion waters down the criteria significantly.
I am somewhat sympathetic to your art analogy, but ultimately it doesn't hold. Watches that do not require an external power source (beyond the user) are intrinsically quite different from those that do, and that distinction has no real analogue in the art world.
What about the Apple Watch Edition, where does that fall 😀
(Some might be surprised by my view on this)
Easiest way of answering the question of what is high end is to open a dictionary...
Exclusive, better, more desirable, limited, often more expensive....
An item which is high end will have one of these features, or several or all in combination... and given that only 'more expensive, and ,limited, can be analysed empirically and the others require much more subjective input from the viewer, a great many watches can be considered high end quite legitimately by some and not to be high end, equally legitimately by others
Have to pull you up on that.
The jewels in a watch are synthetic corrundum in the shape of a disc, or pill. (My Grandfather used to cut them from genuine ruby from Burma - the synthetics were a big blow!) They are enginered in place to fine tollerances, but individually and by machines - even if they are delicate hand operated presses. They are much larger than the gemstones in the OP watch.
To set a jewel in a watch is an engineering process.A gemstone requires an artisan.
The diamonds set in the OP watch were set by a master setter - each stone has to sit at the same height, and in pefect alignment or it looks awful. Each gold bead raised must be the same size, and shape. Each stone must match. It is incredibly difficult and a highly skilled operation. Personally I dont like it, but I can tell you the skill involved is far, far greater than puting in a jewel.
Just look at the rubbish aftermarket diamond bezels sold in the USA. They are set with bigger stones and are often crooked, the settings are lopsided and the stone hights are all over the place. Its very, very hard to set a group of gemstones properly - quite different from mounting a jewel in a movement.
Sorry, but that only serves to dilute the meaning to such a degree that it has little value. Unless you are willing to lay out some specific criteria, the exercise will be far too subjective to have any real meaning.
It's obviously fine for one to consider a limited edition, expensive watch with a modest quality mechanical or electronic movement to be desirable, but that doesn't mean that such a watch is in any serious sense comparable to a mechanical watch that features a superbly finished, chronometer-quality movement.
Of course people can define "high end" any way they like. They are free to use cost as the sole criteria, and, in a limited sense, they would be correct. To my mind, though, and I dare say those of most collectors, there are certain basic standards that need to be met in order for watches to be considered high-end, among which are that the dials, cases and movements must all be of very high quality and finished well.
I understand your point, for sure, but it is not diluting the meaning precicely because it is the dictionary definition of high end, one in which a cheap parnis mechanical cannot be considered high end but a modestly priced quartz can and indeed an expensive, super accurate quartz should be.
If we are asking an entirely different question, ie, what should high end mean, then sure, youve a good argument for why the definition should be changed or refined where watches are concerned.
Sorry, but that only serves to dilute the meaning to such a degree that it has little value. Unless you are willing to lay out some specific criteria, the exercise will be far too subjective to have any real meaning.
It's obviously fine for one to consider a limited edition, expensive watch with a modest quality mechanical or electronic movement to be desirable, but that doesn't mean that such a watch is in any serious sense comparable to a mechanical watch that features a superbly finished, chronometer-quality movement.
Of course people can define "high end" any way they like. They are free to use cost as the sole criteria, and, in a limited sense, they would be correct. To my mind, though, and I dare say those of most collectors, there are certain basic standards that need to be met in order for watches to be considered high-end, among which are that the dials, cases and movements must all be of very high quality and finished well.
Sorry, but that only serves to dilute the meaning to such a degree that it has little value. Unless you are willing to lay out some specific criteria, the exercise will be far too subjective to have any real meaning.
It's obviously fine for one to consider a limited edition, expensive watch with a modest quality mechanical or electronic movement to be desirable, but that doesn't mean that such a watch is in any serious sense comparable to a mechanical watch that features a superbly finished, chronometer-quality movement.
Of course people can define "high end" any way they like. They are free to use cost as the sole criteria, and, in a limited sense, they would be correct. To my mind, though, and I dare say those of most collectors, there are certain basic standards that need to be met in order for watches to be considered high-end, among which are that the dials, cases and movements must all be of very high quality and finished well.
Same answer my
Also expanding on a comment about Mickey Mouse watches the Gerald Genta Mickey watches are extremely sought after.