The Affordable Luxury Watch Is Dying - Fratello

[Notepad12]

An interesting article I came across and wanted to share with you guys..

Let me know what you think

https://www.fratellowatches.com/the-...is-dying/#gref



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[Lesnerelli23]

I’m not sure I agree. I don’t know that it’s income, I think that’s affecting the whole Swiss/luxury market.

I feel like a “snobbery” (can’t think of a better, less aggressive word) has developed and brands that are Swiss, and under $1k, are balked at. It’s true many of these brands like Steinhart aren’t original in their designs but most sub-luxury brands make homage designs so people can afford the look they want on entry level pieces. Squale is a great example because while they may look like homages, they have a rich history of building cases for MANY major luxury players. When you look at them though, we still think “Rolex”, though Squale did it first!

People want a “flex” for social media and so they either spend ridiculous grey prices for luxury brands OR buy designer named crap like Michael Kors. Both can get a social media nod.

Oris, Tag, Squale, Steinhart, Longines, and many more are making affordable, entry level Swiss pieces that border or dip into luxury quality. The bigger problem is, people want the “clout” of names like Rolex, or the holy 3. But the truth is, you can get a 200m swiss diver with ceramic bezel, sapphire crystal, solid end links, screw links, and even HEV for under $2k. It’s not an income thing, it’s a name thing.

I hope I made my argument clear and I don’t mean it as an attack on anyone. Its just a big market drive for people is the “flex” factor. This doesn’t apply to most of collectors here on the forum that appreciate history and other brands. But we are the minority of the market.

[pursang_]

The first problem with that article is the forced equivalency of "affordable luxury" with being Swiss.

The Apple watch didn't kill "Swissness" -- complacency did. The Swiss brands at the lower price points got fat and lazy while the Germans and Japanese ran laps around them. To say nothing of the meteoric rise of microbrands, Seiko modding and heightened interest in independent watchmakers.

And this isn't exclusive to the lower price points either. Look at what ALS is doing -- they are living rent free inside the heads of AP, PP, and VC executives.

[Lesnerelli23]

Originally Posted by pursang_

The first problem with that article is the forced equivalency of "affordable luxury" with being Swiss.

The Apple watch didn't kill "Swissness" -- complacency did. The Swiss brands at the lower price points got fat and lazy while the Germans and Japanese ran laps around them. To say nothing of the meteoric rise of microbrands, Seiko modding and heightened interest in independent watchmakers.

And this isn't exclusive to the lower price points either. Look at what ALS is doing -- they are living rent free inside the heads of AP, PP, and VC executives.

These are great points too!

[Calatrava r]

I would tend to agree the overall watch market is not too great as the average person no longer needs or wears a watch, except for wearable devices. The luxury market has been on fire but its amongst a few brands and select models. It's the mid-market lower entry level, which is hit the hardest, the folks who would buy a $2,000 to 4,000 watch, that is a ton of money to them at the moment. Plus, these brands lose a lot of value which makes the buying decision that much tougher. I suspect the $200 to 500-range market is doing okay.

[1William]

I guess it is how you define luxury and affordability. Most have thoughts on this but agreement is more of a difficult thing. My experience is that everything gets more expensive over time and watches are no exception. Brands see the market, upgrade products, charge more money and the wheel rolls round and round. When I was in my twenties and early thirties a few thousand dollars for a watch was a lot of money and for some it still is. But I am just as likely to buy a $500 Seiko as I am a 20k Rolex and think nothing more about the money involved and just focus on the watch that I want. Time, hard work and fortune have blessed me so with a large collection it is more of a hobby as as opposed to a luxury. Just my thoughts.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

I would tend to agree the overall watch market is not too great as the average person no longer needs or wears a watch, except for wearable devices. The luxury market has been on fire but its amongst a few brands and select models. It's the mid-market lower entry level, which is hit the hardest, the folks who would buy a $2,000 to 4,000 watch, that is a ton of money to them at the moment. Plus, these brands lose a lot of value which makes the buying decision that much tougher. I suspect the $200 to 500-range market is doing okay.

There is a lot of value in the $200-$500 range. All manor of very decent and stylish watches not to mention the Seiko mod folks who can basically give you any watch style you want with a proven reliable movement for under $500. That makes it difficult for manufacturers of watches costing 4-8x more yet not offering substantially more "value". Rolex and a few other high-end manufactures offer a different kind of "value". Price retention is part of it, specific styling cues are another, and the value of making the owner feel "special" in some way. That is a very tough kind of branding association to achieve and then maintain.

[DJ2020]

I don't know if I would agree with everything in the article. Around my area, mid level if you will is on the rise. Specific models are sold out and are being ordered multiple times per week.
One of the brands I favor more than any is longines. Increased advertising may have a part in this. They also just Increased there prices a bit. But most of all they are offering a extraordinary high quality watch that holds accuracy with the best watches made.

The last couple of years with hyped watches being harder to obtain has move a great deal of customers to other brands. Especially if you include the snobbery that exclusive dealers have started treating there customers like play things. Two Rolex dealers in my area have practiced such behavior in the last 2 years. They are paying the heavy price as we speak.

There stores are almost empty of customers and products. So much so that many lines are no longer there. People remember.

But most of all, customers have figured out that you can get a high quality watch that's on par with anything made today. The gap has closed that much. But a small segment of buyers bring up words like investment, resale and flex appeal. Vast majority don't buy watches to sell or flex. They buy them because there collectors or just simply want a good time piece.
They don't want to pay 4 times what there worth to begin with or $1k just to have a 3 hand serviced when they can pay $200. And get the same factory warranty.

As far as numbers go, Longines is on pace to exceed there normal 2 million watches a year this year. Hamilton is not far behind. While the margin may be greater with a company like Rolex, shear volume that is steady may infact win in the end.

Social media my drive sales and desire to own a particular watch to the stars, But the same media can also bring it crashing down. Most people can't stand a flexer. It's just rude. Ironically I have never seen a Patek or AP owner look down at any other brand the way the new generation of Rolex owners do. Brand recognition works both ways, good or bad.

I for one will continue to buy fantastic watches at fair prices no matter the name on the dial. I'm quite sure many other people will do the same.

[enjoythemusic]

Why does it have to be Swiss, or as the article said Swissness? Have they ever heard of Seiko, or Timex, or others? Heck, look at Longines. Sorry Fratello, not agreeing at all and yes microbrands are fine as it's easy for any watchmaker to work on those movements, or just do what some Swiss brands do and simply swap the movement instead of servicing it.

I've gotten some amazingly fun timepieces for under $1000. My new $600 fun toy should be here in about a month. Don't care if Fratello thinks it is or is not not high-end... enjoy your time.

2d.jpg

[Tbird]

Haven't read the article yet, but I believe there is an intrinsic difference between "affordable" and "luxury"... however "affordable" is also relative...

[beshannon]

Not at all

[mzcool]

The way I see it is that the Tags, Longines, etc type brands are in a bad spot because they don’t offer substantially more value than a nice Shinola, for example. And they don’t have good resale value.

The odds are, if you can afford to pay 4k for a watch that will immediately depreciate, you can afford to pay 8k for one that won’t.

I got my first Rolex and never looked back on any lower tier luxury brand. The only other one I would buy is an Omega and that’s because I’m a big Bond fan, not because of its value.

Otherwise, it’s either sub $1000 or Apple Watch.

[WristWatchWonders]

Great article.

[Dirt]

I agree with the analysis.
Unless one is interested in high end quartz, there's pretty much nothing.
The last high end mechanical watch i bought that was reasonably priced was a Speedy a few years ago. Before that it was back in 2006 at $3500.
I see nothing around these days

[FTX I]

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

[amh]

That's what's killing the mid-tier Swiss brands - Income inequality, covid, Instagram?

I would say it is design. Not marketing - design.

Went to my local AD and they had no Rolex to sell (to me anyway ) and tried on a Tag chrono. Amazing watch! Looked good, great power reserve, great history, great bracelet - but Ooops no micro adjust! That killed the deal. $6k from dealer, $4k from ebay. Solid mid-tier watch but it had a fatal flaw.

How hard would it be for Tag to include an adjustable clasp? Even Tudor can do it.

Or let's beat up on Tudor. They are not going to die because they are riding on the coattails of Rolex (Yes it's true.) They continue to muff things up, example the faux patina, faux rivets, Snowflake on every model. The only reason they survive is Rolex. Solid movements, but no one looks at the movement.

Let's beat up on Omega! Bracelets from hell across the board. HEV knobs, movie marketing printed on the watch, 5-lb oak boxes, collab with a plastic watch brand, cartoons on the dial. Will the real Omega stand up? Once again solid movements, but no one looks at the movement.

Rolex stands out despite being conservative. No - it's because they are conservative. Unambiguous water resistance across the board, automatic accurate movements for ladies & gents, excellent bracelets, excellent design, excellent after sales support. Money well spent.

(Ok I know I'll catch flak for ripping on Tudor & Omega. Sue me. I have a Tudor FWIW, I just think they are headed the wrong way. And yes I've tried Omega and would buy one again... just not from the current catalog.)

[macrowatch]

Originally Posted by amh

That's what's killing the mid-tier Swiss brands - Income inequality, covid, Instagram?

I would say it is design. Not marketing - design.

Went to my local AD and they had no Rolex to sell (to me anyway ) and tried on a Tag chrono. Amazing watch! Looked good, great power reserve, great history, great bracelet - but Ooops no micro adjust! That killed the deal. $6k from dealer, $4k from ebay. Solid mid-tier watch but it had a fatal flaw.

How hard would it be for Tag to include an adjustable clasp? Even Tudor can do it.

Or let's beat up on Tudor. They are not going to die because they are riding on the coattails of Rolex (Yes it's true.) They continue to muff things up, example the faux patina, faux rivets, Snowflake on every model. The only reason they survive is Rolex. Solid movements, but no one looks at the movement.

Let's beat up on Omega! Bracelets from hell across the board. HEV knobs, movie marketing printed on the watch, 5-lb oak boxes, collab with a plastic watch brand, cartoons on the dial. Will the real Omega stand up? Once again solid movements, but no one looks at the movement.

Rolex stands out despite being conservative. No - it's because they are conservative. Unambiguous water resistance across the board, automatic accurate movements for ladies & gents, excellent bracelets, excellent design, excellent after sales support. Money well spent.

(Ok I know I'll catch flak for ripping on Tudor & Omega. Sue me. I have a Tudor FWIW, I just think they are headed the wrong way. And yes I've tried Omega and would buy one again... just not from the current catalog.)

Or it's a huge conspiracy theory. All the other brands are just there to make Rolex look good and Rolex sends a kickback to the owners of the other brands to keep the ruse going!

[Star Ferry]

The sub-$5K Swiss range has been pretty thin since I first got interested in watches about 12 years ago, but they are correct that it’s substantially thinner now, even adjusting for inflation. This is probably why Rolex is using the Tudor range to fill the gap for those who want a meaningful Swiss watch in that price range.

One countercurrent is there are more quality non-Swiss makers now widely available. It’s not like a Nomos, Seiko prospex or a Sinn is a bad watch.

Full retail plus tax in nyc for an IWC mark xviii cost me $5700 the other month. That probably counts as affordable luxury now, but a lot of hardcore hobbyists diss watches like that as overpriced. They want a pedigreed Swiss brand, in-house movement, good finishing, etc. all at an approachable price.

[rajurama]

Originally Posted by 1William

I guess it is how you define luxury and affordability. Most have thoughts on this but agreement is more of a difficult thing. My experience is that everything gets more expensive over time and watches are no exception. Brands see the market, upgrade products, charge more money and the wheel rolls round and round. When I was in my twenties and early thirties a few thousand dollars for a watch was a lot of money and for some it still is. But I am just as likely to buy a $500 Seiko as I am a 20k Rolex and think nothing more about the money involved and just focus on the watch that I want. Time, hard work and fortune have blessed me so with a large collection it is more of a hobby as as opposed to a luxury. Just my thoughts.

X2 in the same boat ....

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

The sub-$5K Swiss range has been pretty thin since I first got interested in watches about 12 years ago

Thankfully there are quite a few other countries that offer verrrry nice sub-$5k timepieces :)

One countercurrent is there are more quality non-Swiss makers now widely available. It’s not like a Nomos, Seiko prospex or a Sinn is a bad watch.

Agreed, Seiko is rock solid, as are others. TRF is more on the middle and upper end price-wise with timepieces. WuSeek has a staggering amount of discussion about far more affordable luxury timepieces, so perhaps that's a better place for this discussion?

As i've mentioned, have picked up some really nice sub-$1k pieces.

Check out https://dumoreau.com as they just released a nice $1k timepiece with Swiss movement, if you must have something Swiss-ish.

[dtwer]

I agree with one of the comments below the article. The mid-range luxury watches are in an awkward position. They tend to be too nice to be tool watches, yet not high-end enough when brand recognition is called for.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by DJ2020

Social media my drive sales and desire to own a particular watch to the stars, But the same media can also bring it crashing down. Most people can't stand a flexer. It's just rude. Ironically I have never seen a Patek or AP owner look down at any other brand the way the new generation of Rolex owners do. Brand recognition works both ways, good or bad.

I for one will continue to buy fantastic watches at fair prices no matter the name on the dial. I'm quite sure many other people will do the same.

Really depends where you are. In Manhattan having a Rolex conveys no prestige of any kind. When I lived in Hong Kong, waiters and bank tellers thought having a Rolex on your wrist was a bare minimum requirement to be worthy of basic decency. Both are rich areas, but big difference in sophistication.