So what is your definition of a High End Watch?

Posts
16,735
Likes
47,334
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.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
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.

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)
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
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.

Everything really.
 
Posts
7,672
Likes
26,606
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)

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.
 
Posts
16,735
Likes
47,334
Everything really.

See the same argument 😉.
There is a lot of nice bottles with not the best taste inside. Also everyone's palate is different.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
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.

Not to say one day they won't make an incredible high end Tesla.

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.

I am not arguing, (in fact supported the point early on this thread) the intrinsic value of mechanical horology, specially for us, hobbyists, collectors and in some cases professionals. But I wouldn't discredit a great work just because it is not fitting to that mold.

In terms of Art, to change perspective a bit, the argument for, or against each movement versus the present, or past is always repetitive. In opera there is always a past Golden age, Impressionism and expressionism where seen as many as aberrations of what should be a straight forward naturalistic depiction, and naturalism itself was seen as an aberration of what should be a bucolic, perfect, symmetric and prodigous version of things closer to the divine than the human...on the other side of the spectrum all the isms of the 20th century dadaism, cubism, etc leading into abstract art where just seen by many as nonsense childs play and an excuse to hide a lack of artistic training and discipline with random lines and splotches of paint...a good open open minded art collector may have a preference, but seldom will he not admit the mastery of the other movements.
 
Posts
30,070
Likes
35,900
What about the Apple Watch Edition, where does that fall 😀

(Some might be surprised by my view on this)
 
Posts
7,672
Likes
26,606
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.
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
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.
Said Rembrandt to Picasso....

My point is you can have high end Quartz and low end mechanical, that's all.

I would argue a mechanical watch has more in common with a Quartz than a Jackson Pollock and a Rembrandt.
Edited:
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
What about the Apple Watch Edition, where does that fall 😀

(Some might be surprised by my view on this)
IMO it's a high end communications gadget, doesn't really apply to watch. You could say it being a wrist Gadget makes it so but that would be like saying an IPhone is a pocket watch...it is not, although it does hold that function.
 
Posts
3,901
Likes
44,908
While I certainly do agree on battery watches not being high end - there are exceptions and I would like to add a time perspective on it. When Omega and others in the beginning of the quartz era made their - in my opinion - high end mega quartzes they were cutting edge. And still are.
I consider a Omega Marine Chronometer as a high end watch - put in the time perspective. A modern watch with a generic movement but cased in gold and with diamonds - not.
 
Posts
1,855
Likes
4,848
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
 
Posts
7,672
Likes
26,606
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

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.
 
Posts
16,292
Likes
34,343
Not being as horologically erudite as some others, I'll just rely on a few examples of watches I consider to be high end, for various reasons.

Omega Constellation "Marine Chronometer", for high end innovation in a time of great change.

Patek Philippe Grandmaster Chime, simply for the appreciation of the ultimate in watchmaking skills.

Seiko "Grand Seiko Hi-Beat", this is when the "budget brand" came of age with a real contender for mechanical perfection.

There are of course many others, and exploring their history is one of the things that keeps me interested in this time consuming hobby.

And of course, opinions on watches are like opinions on politics and religion. Should be able to be discussed and considered, but never argued.

Cheers

Jim
 
Posts
27,560
Likes
70,166
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.

Setting a jewel in a watch plate, or setting it in a piece of jewelry are both fairly simple technical skills. Assigning the term "artistry" to either is more a romantic notion than fact in my view. I have done plenty of watch jewels, and my friend is a jeweler/goldsmith who sets stones every day, and it's not as difficult as you might imagine.

When you talk about the skill required in setting a watch jewel, I would first ask you what type of jewel you are referring to (your comments are more suited to modern jewels). Modern friction fitted jewels are simple to install yes, but in some cases have to be done far more accurately than setting a pave diamond - we are talking about end shake tolerances on some wheels smaller than .01 mm. But yes there are tools involved that make this all pretty easy to do.

If you are talking about bezel set jewels in antique/vintage watches, then this is a whole different story. The skills needed to do this are at the very least equivalent to setting a diamond, if not more demanding. If done from scratch where the bezel has to be created, I would argue it's actually much more involved than setting a diamond or other jewel. These jewels are held in place by a bezel that is cut into the movement plate (or sometimes into a chaton) and first the hole for the jewel has to be made in the plate, perfectly centered where it has to be for proper engagement of the wheels. Then the bezel has to be cut from the plate material surrounding the hole, opened on the lathe so the jewel can be inserted, the jewel is the placed, and then the bezel is burnished over to hold the jewel in place. Again it has to be correctly centered in the hole, and set at the right height, or the watch will not run properly.

Most modern watches use friction fitted jewels, but even going back to the 1950's many US made pocket watches use bezel set (also called "rubbed in") jewels. These older jewels are not made any longer, are more fragile than modern jewels, and are more difficult to find all the time as the supply is limited. This is one reason I no longer work on these watches - I spend more time looking for jewels than I do actually working on the watches.

Cheers, Al
 
Posts
1,855
Likes
4,848
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.
 
Posts
586
Likes
655
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.

That word "opinion" is a slippery little bugger for some to grasp. 😉
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,793
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 own definition got from you...but the thing is; I don't find either my nor the actual dictionary definition to be that "diluting" it's very easy to apply to watches or anything else you just have to accept that some watches that you don't consider high end fit into that description. If you don't accept that the issue is less with the definition of high end and more with your own standards of excellence which are clearly very high ( not a criticism just an observation) Your definition and standards fit exactly with high end horologicaly mechanical time pieces. But like it or not a quartz Cartier is also a watch, also high end and also a valid and deserving piece.

Where I agree 100% is that it's not just a movement but the level of finishing, detail and quality of all parts of the piece. Or what I call wholesome. The Genta Geffica is a perfect example. Every detail on that watch was perfectly executed...but it was quartz.

Also expanding on a comment about Mickey Mouse watches the Gerald Genta Mickey watches are extremely sought after.
Edited:
 
Posts
2,828
Likes
4,712
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.
Tony, I will ask you one question.
Do you consider Patek or AP quartz watches to be high end or were they just very expensive electronic fashion accessories of their day?