Quote:
Originally Posted by K19BMW
Are we talking used or new in this thread because if we are talking used then there are tons of watches that are inbetween $1200-$9000 that are priced midrange but are great watches and even new there are tons of great watches in that range.
Rolex Sub
Omegas (too many to list)
JLC MUT
Tudor (with their new inhouse movement)
Seiko (with their spring drive movement)
And many more.
If you had said between $1200-$5000 i would have agreed but $9000 is way to high an upper limit to star saying that nothing good falls inbetween that price
|
The early in the OP comment that went from $1200 to $9000 was an expression of what I'd sooner do than buy in the mid-range. It's not my definition of the mid-range's price spectrum. I see ~$2K to ~$7K as the mid-range.
I wrote $1200 >= I'd sooner buy >= $9000 because I have everything I actually want in the $5K - $9K range. Remember, the OP is about
why "I" don't like shopping for mid-range watches, not about whether there are nice watches (or not) in the mid-range.
Re: the idea you're expressing, which is somewhat different than what I was addressing, I wrote:
- I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse. At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better.
- I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse.
- At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better....The [upper end of] mid-range got worse when the AK disappeared because that instantly allowed the mid-range to shift upward to about $6K, but the watches in that range are not any different than they were the day before Rolex announced the AK's end of production.
It's not that there aren't lovely watches between $5K and $9K, it's that one major change in the marketplace caused most of them quite simply to cost more than they should. At the lower end of the mid-range (~$2K to ~$2.5K) there aren't enough stand out watches.
Someone earlier mentioned the Tudor Black Bay, which is a a very nice watch., but for the same price, one can get an Omega co-axial. And what are the key differences?
- Chronometer grade time measurement/reporting -- Tudor no; Omega yes
- Free sprung balance -- Omega co-axial has it; Tudor's ETA Top doesn't. The benefit: vastly more shock resistant timekeeping because impacts can't shift the screws used to adjust timing rates whereas they can jar out of place the levers connected to the balance spring in the Tudor.
- Warranty length -- Tudor 2 years; Omega co-axial 4 years
- Sales and service -- This dimension is probably even, maybe a slight edge to Omega.
- The Black Bay has access to service via the Rolex service network
- The Black Bat has ETA-inside which means any watchmaker can deal with it.
- The Omega requires less frequent recommended servicing in the first place because the things that makes most watches actually need servicing -- lube drying out and friction -- are vastly better in the co-axial escapements which have almost no friction and supposedly no lube required. (Early co-axials still needed a bit of lube; I don't know if the newest ones do.) As a practical matter, and ignoring the makers recommendations which I know many folks do, it's hard to say which has the upper hand. I'm inclined to say the Omega does just based on the physics, but the co-axial escapement hasn't been around for 40 years, as a perfected movement, it hasn't been around for
- On sales, Omega has a wider network than does Tudor, so it's just easier to buy an Omega.
- Cachet, history and "legendary-ness" of the movement -- Hands down Omega. Why, well the ETA2892 on which the co-axial was based is legendary in its own right. Omega's enhancement of it to create the co-axial movement just ups the ante. The BB comes with the ETA 2824 -- no slouch by any means, but not quite as fine a movement as the 2892 due mainly to its thicker profile, lower shock resistance, and the 2892's always having a bit of decoration whereas the 2894s may or may not have decorative finishing, depending on how it's ordered.
- Overall build quality -- I could quibble on this and that minor feature, but overall, I'd call it even, and I'd do so for just about everything in the mid-range because my usage pattern won't ever find me caring about any individual minor features. The worse that'll happen to my watches is that I may drop them on a stone floor or sidewalk, and all of them are tough enough to survive that, even if they pick up a scratch or dent in the process.
The same sort of comparison can be made with lots of ~$2500 or less watches and an Omega co-axial (new, at discounted prices, not pre-owned). The thing is that at that end of the price spectrum, on
objective measures, the co-axial watches win, time and again. That doesn't make the competing watches "not nice," it makes the Omegas nicer.
Subjectively speaking -- looks being foremost among such measures -- it's a different matter; people like what they like for whatever reasons. I myself don't like that the co-axial movements result in a thicker watch, and for the slightly dressier styles of watch I prefer, thicker is less desirable to me than is thinner.
How does that play out for me in terms of selecting a watch? Well, comparing say the Omega Constellation with one of Cartier's bracelet mounted, mid-price watches (Tank or CdC), I'd pick the Omega. Between a Constellation and Nautilus or Royal Oak, I like the looks of each to about the same extent. Now after having had a Constellation for a while, I'll want to have an RO, Cartier or Nautilus, if for no other reason than to have something different looking to wear from time to time.
Someone else might choose one of the Cartiers because they like the look better. The thing is that that person has consciously or unconsciously decided that subjective elements are more important than are objective ones. And, frankly, I decide that from time to time as well, so far be it from me to berate one for doing the same.
Lastly, as the preceding two paragraph allude, buying one nice watch to wear for a very long time, buying one's first nice watch, and buying watches in part as fashion accessories present a different, although somewhat overlapping, set of considerations and each of those buying scenarios rightly weights differently the factors involved.
All the best.
Note:
I don't buy into the "in-house is better because it's in-house" snobbery. I think in-house is better when the in-house-ness includes functional or aesthetic features and benefits that cannot be had in a 3rd party movement. Interestingly, there were a times when Swiss and guild laws prohibited fully-in-house watch production: the era of the Renaissance guilds (
http://www.watch-around.com/en/subsc...-crescent.html) and the early 1900s (
http://www.watchalyzer.com/education...-and-eta-2892/) There are only a handful -- three I know of for sure -- that remain from the Renaissance-Age of Enlightenment eras, and of them, only one is still the same company entity, owned by the same family that created it.