Watch Idiot Snobbism illustrated

[Andyg]

Who was the astronaut who said something along the lines of “As we blasted off I was conscious of the fact that every component of the spacecraft had been supplied by the lowest bidder”?

R

I think that was the bloke who worn an "issued" Omega, rather than the bloke who wore his own Rolex to work

:)

[keitht]

I tend to read all of these types of threads but never add to them, due to the direction they always take, and that they are always dominated by the same few posters.
(And i know that this thread is/was not about Rolex, but its been steered ( rightly or wrongly?) in that direction, so i feel its OK to mention them again)

But after years? of doing so, i am right in the assumption that Rolex is a better watch due to global perception, inspired marketing and that its liable to be worth much more than it was bought for in a reasonable length of time?As opposed to actually being a better watch?

I have owned a few, admittedly nothing made in the last 15yrs or so, and can honestly say i have never experienced an elevated quality level,over say, Girard Perregaux, that would justify the favourable residuals, which means the reason must lie elsewhere.

Even my OQ, a model which i have much affection for, does not always stack up well against similar period peices from others.

I bought a used Villemont once, and have owned several Dubey & Schaldenbrands, both of whom are(were) high-end manufacturers whose peices suffered huge depreciation, yet the watches themselves oozed quality. The opposite of what is levelled at Invicta, an opinion i happen to agree with.
So why do many other quality brands not enjoy the same position as Rolex?
Not purely for financial reasons?

[rob-vicar]

So why do many other quality brands not enjoy the same position as Rolex?

If anyone outside of Rolex knew this answer, they'd sell it to the competitors ASAP, except for Patek as they seem to share similar fortunes.

IMO I don't know what makes this happen. Yes marketing is a factor, but in the end it is the consumer who chooses the brand, but why Rolex instead of Omega or GP, couldn't tell you.
One thing that certainly contributes is the product itself, not necessarily better, it doesn't have to be, it just has to to be good. Rolex produce models, which although far removed from their original guises, can be traced back to their origins. They make only a few actual models but with 'infinite' choice of mods.

The models change at a glacial pace, which for many is a good thing, you can buy a watch for a substantial amount of cash and it'll still look contemporary in 10-20-30 years time. Other manufacturers change their models too often so with in a few years apart from the watch being 'the old one' it will also look dated.

Other successes include pricing, Rolex have hit it about right, expensive enough to be out of reach for most, which in some creates or increases desirability, but not too expensive that they can't be aimed for.

[andrew]

There are better watches out there for the same money.

End of thread.

You'll be lucky ;). But let's try this:

There are better watches out there for the same RRP as this Invicta, which is $2,495, although no Invicta has ever been sold at RRP.

The "shtreet" price is around half that, often one third. And Invicta is known across the planet for having no customer service, and an aggressive, design-thieving boss whose US shopping-channel demeanour suggests he operates not very far away at all from the underworld. So, no-one wants this watch from this ruined brand that offers generally negative measurable ownership proposition, with no UK outlet and no comeback in the quite likely event that it breaks, it could be made of hardened unicorn spoo and cure any wearer of cancer, and it would still be about as attractive as shaved arm hair on a man. No, no, no, no.

End of thread? Sigh, I doubt it.

[Itsguy]

I would like to admit that I am a card carrying Watch Idiot Snob. I believe branding is important and relevant. Given two identical watches with differing branding, I would definitely choose the one with branding that conveys the message I prefer, every time. I would gladly pay a premium not to have Invicta written on my wrist. I believe that logos and branding are powerful symbols that covey messages about the wearer and their allegiances - consider national flags, religious symbols such as crucifixes, political logos, swastikas, the letter 'Om', and indeed the Rolex crown (one of the most powerful out there) and the word 'Invicta' (also powerful in its own dubious way). I believe that to fail to grasp this is simply ignorance. 'Cilla is correct, people do not choose watches purely on the basis of value for money as defined by mechanical analysis. They do care what other people think and about how the little writing on the dial makes them feel. I certainly do so I must be Watch Idiot Snob.

Can we go home now?

[Andyg]

If anyone outside of Rolex knew this answer, they'd sell it to the competitors ASAP, except for Patek as they seem to share similar fortunes.

IMO I don't know what makes this happen. Yes marketing is a factor, but in the end it is the consumer who chooses the brand, but why Rolex instead of Omega or GP, couldn't tell you.
One thing that certainly contributes is the product itself, not necessarily better, it doesn't have to be, it just has to to be good. Rolex produce models, which although far removed from their original guises, can be traced back to their origins. They make only a few actual models but with 'infinite' choice of mods.

The models change at a glacial pace, which for many is a good thing, you can buy a watch for a substantial amount of cash and it'll still look contemporary in 10-20-30 years time. Other manufacturers change their models too often so with in a few years apart from the watch being 'the old one' it will also look dated.

Other successes include pricing, Rolex have hit it about right, expensive enough to be out of reach for most, which in some creates or increases desirability, but not too expensive that they can't be aimed for.

Pretty much spot on - you could include Historcial factors, the first watch to be worn to swim the Channel, their relationship with the Military and Comex, their darkside, i.e. providing movements and cases to Panerai, their ability to innovate within the industry (usually stollen and then improved) their relationship with A listers, like Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Castro, etc and of course the whole James Bond thing. Also ROLEX (who have been arround for about 100 years) only make watches, unlike many other companies - it's what they do and are rather good at it!!

So a bit like Rolls Royce in that respect. And lets fact it, they are a global brand, with excellent after sales servicing and marketting - hardly likely to go bust and leave you with an expensive peice of junk.

All of this also reminds me of the old saying - "no one gets sacked for buying IBM", simply because at the time they had a similar reputation within the IT market place.

If people have the money (especially non-WIS), then why not buy a Rolex. Perhaps in the same way that these people might also chose to buy Evian Water, IPhones, Tumi Luggage, etc. All are safe, trusted and known brands, therefore your purchase is very unlikely to end badly.

[Huertecilla]

I would like to admit that I am a card carrying Watch Idiot Snob. I believe branding is important and relevant. Given two identical watches with differing branding, I would definitely choose the one with branding that conveys the message I prefer, every time. I would gladly pay a premium not to have Invicta written on my wrist. I believe that logos and branding are powerful symbols that covey messages about the wearer and their allegiances - consider national flags, religious symbols such as crucifixes, political logos, swastikas, the letter 'Om', and indeed the Rolex crown (one of the most powerful out there) and the word 'Invicta' (also powerful in its own dubious way). I believe that to fail to grasp this is simply ignorance. 'Cilla is correct, people do not choose watches purely on the basis of value for money as defined by mechanical analysis. They do care what other people think and about how the little writing on the dial makes them feel. I certainly do so I must be Watch Idiot Snob.

Can we go home now?

Yes, we can.
THANKS!

All ´needed´ imo is making this into something newcomers will encounter when delving for info to orient themselves.

[kaiserphoenix]

The fact that Rolex hardly gives discounts is another factor on why residuals and values are so strong. If you look at other brands such as Louis Vuitton and Apple for example, both companies will never be present in an Outlet store, and whether you buy a brand new ipad in one store or another, the price is always consistent. Likewise with LV, it is ALWAYS excluded from Selfridge/Harrods sales etc.

The fact that an item is always selling at MSRP or NEAR MSRP makes sure that residuals are strong. Ofcourse to do this, the Branding has to be strong that people are prepared to pay for that price. If you look at other quality manufactures, like Jaeger Le Coultre, Omega, IWC for example, you can iimmediately find a brand new sample for minimum 10-15% off with not much effort. The STREET price and the actual price is different, causing deeper price cuts in residuals etc. Nothing per se about the quality of the watch, just the strength of the management of the brand.

[ralphy]

All ´needed´ imo is making this into something newcomers will encounter when delving for info to orient themselves.

We can agree on that certainly.

Any ‘newcomer’ reading this thread will be able to gain a clear perspective of how Invicta operates: the blatant ripping-off of other brands, the appalling after-sales service, the reality of what the watch is actually worth, the ridiculous RRP of their products, ...

kaiserphoenix][/COLOR]

The fact that Rolex hardly gives discounts is another factor on why residuals and values are so strong. If you look at other brands such as Louis Vuitton and Apple for example, both companies will never be present in an Outlet store, and whether you buy a brand new ipad in one store or another, the price is always consistent. Likewise with LV, it is ALWAYS excluded from Selfridge/Harrods sales etc.

The fact that an item is always selling at MSRP or NEAR MSRP makes sure that residuals are strong. Ofcourse to do this, the Branding has to be strong that people are prepared to pay for that price. If you look at other quality manufactures, like Jaeger Le Coultre, Omega, IWC for example, you can iimmediately find a brand new sample for minimum 10-15% off with not much effort. The STREET price and the actual price is different, causing deeper price cuts in residuals etc. Nothing per se about the quality of the watch, just the strength of the management of the brand.

Good points. There will always be those who are seduced by an offering that appears to be such good value compared to the inflated RRP of the manufacturer, but hopefully some will look a little deeper into what the item actually fetches when second-hand/used.

R

[rob-vicar]

I know the lure is there of a massively discounted item, whatever it is. But, surely only the most gullible and stupid must think that any of that BS is actually true?

[lysanderxiii]

Who was the astronaut who said something along the lines of “As we blasted off I was conscious of the fact that every component of the spacecraft had been supplied by the lowest bidder”?

It had been attributed to John Glenn, but he actually never said that.

[lysanderxiii]

I think that was the bloke who worn an "issued" Omega, rather than the bloke who wore his own Rolex to work

Glenn actually worn a Heuer stopwatch in a hand fashioned strap on his one and only space flight.

[Huertecilla]

I know the lure is there of a massively discounted item, whatever it is. But, surely only the most gullible and stupid must think that any of that BS is actually true?

Well, there are loads of wis paying several thousands for the same sum of parts.
It is just that with this brand the charade is plain to see.
That in itself is obviously a personal choice as good as any.
It is how Veblen works.
Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good.
That is unfortunately also how Veblen works and should be identified on watch fora.

[lysanderxiii]

If anyone outside of Rolex knew this answer, they'd sell it to the competitors ASAP, except for Patek as they seem to share similar fortunes.

IMO I don't know what makes this happen. Yes marketing is a factor, but in the end it is the consumer who chooses the brand, but why Rolex instead of Omega or GP, couldn't tell you.
One thing that certainly contributes is the product itself, not necessarily better, it doesn't have to be, it just has to to be good. Rolex produce models, which although far removed from their original guises, can be traced back to their origins. They make only a few actual models but with 'infinite' choice of mods.

The models change at a glacial pace, which for many is a good thing, you can buy a watch for a substantial amount of cash and it'll still look contemporary in 10-20-30 years time. Other manufacturers change their models too often so with in a few years apart from the watch being 'the old one' it will also look dated.

Other successes include pricing, Rolex have hit it about right, expensive enough to be out of reach for most, which in some creates or increases desirability, but not too expensive that they can't be aimed for.

Because Rolex did a better job of telling the world how good there stuff was than Omega.

Somewhere I noted that I followed the American Space program for years asa kid, but it was until I became interseted in watches did I discover The Omega Speedmaster was the watch worn in the Gemini and Apollo programs. I never knew, until I became a WIS, that the Royal Navy used Omega Seamaster 300s, etc. Omega failed to capitalize on their accomplishments.

Rolex on the other hand told me, through adds in National Geographic, than Hillary had a Rolex and a nuclear sub captain wore a rolex or any number of other people who did interesting things wore Rolexes. It was not just the ads, but the choice of spokesman (woman) was tied to the subject matter of the magazine, so it was easier to identify with the spokesman (woman) and "see" why a Rolex would suit your needs...

Of course, this never would have worked had they (Rolex) produced crap watches.

[Huertecilla]

Rolex on the other hand told me, through adds in National Geographic, the Hillary had a Rolex

...even though he wore a Smith to the top of Everest.
Have look too at the Time Factors Smith Everest: Very telling!

[lysanderxiii]

Well, there are loads of wis paying several thousands for the same sum of parts.
It is just that with this brand the charade is plain to see.
That in itself is obviously a personal choice as good as any.
It is how Veblen works.
Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good.
That is unfortunately also how Veblen works and should be identified on watch fora.

You realize the even your cheap Invicta at $200 is priced more than the "sum of [its] parts".

And, if you truly understood how Velben goods worked you would not be sprouting it in every post like it proves your point. It actually proves everyone else's point....

There is a reason there is such thing as branding, it let's the consumer know the reputation of the manufacturer. And, from the reputation, you know the quality. Now, which company would you rather buy from, one that is known for good quality products, or one that makes crap. Well, if the price is low enough and the quality not crappy enough, maybe. But generally, you have more than just two choices, so you will look for the where the acceptable quality line crosses the acceptable price line. For some people the accptable price line crosses at the Rolex price point, other at the Seiko price point. Neither one is wrong, or delusional, just two different acceptable price ranges....

[rob-vicar]

Well, there are loads of wis paying several thousands for the same sum of parts.
It is just that with this brand the charade is plain to see.
That in itself is obviously a personal choice as good as any.
It is how Veblen works.
Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good.
That is unfortunately also how Veblen works and should be identified on watch fora.

paying thousands for the same sum of parts? no there isn't, and a stupid comparison, as the parts would all have to be the same quality, quantity, production cost etc. etc. to make such a comparison. which they are not.
I'm glad you accept my personal choice and it is of a comparable standard to others, not that I need your acceptance nor ask for it, and it was very arrogant of you to think so.
Veblen? yes we know, my word do we know, and should anyone ever dare to forget or even if we don't, I'm very sure we'll be reminded of it as regularly.
Your opinion about the delusional group, the same opinion and/or information, drawn from individual conclusions, just because it is held by many does not necessarily make it delusional, a person in disagreement constantly say it is delusional, also does not make it so.
Why should Veblen be pointed out and why is it bad? If people are willing to buy goods purely because they are more expensive than others for status, that's their prerogative and keeps the economy going.

[rob-vicar]

...even though he wore a Smith to the top of Everest.
Have look too at the Time Factors Smith Everest: Very telling!

Not really the point, in a chat about Rolex adverts is it.

[rob-vicar]

Because Rolex did a better job of telling the world how good there stuff was than Omega.

Somewhere I noted that I followed the American Space program for years asa kid, but it was until I became interseted in watches did I discover The Omega Speedmaster was the watch worn in the Gemini and Apollo programs. I never knew, until I became a WIS, that the Royal Navy used Omega Seamaster 300s, etc. Omega failed to capitalize on their accomplishments.

Rolex on the other hand told me, through adds in National Geographic, than Hillary had a Rolex and a nuclear sub captain wore a rolex or any number of other people who did interesting things wore Rolexes. It was not just the ads, but the choice of spokesman (woman) was tied to the subject matter of the magazine, so it was easier to identify with the spokesman (woman) and "see" why a Rolex would suit your needs...

Of course, this never would have worked had they (Rolex) produced crap watches.

PAN-AM pilots wear Rolex
Red Adair wears Rolex, as does Forsyth, Fleming, McQueen, Newman, The Rat Pack etc. etc.

Simply heroes of an era

[lysanderxiii]

...Hillary had a Rolex....

...even though he wore a Smith to the top of Everest.
Have look too at the Time Factors Smith Everest: Very telling!

You have a unfortunate habit of hearing what you want to hear...

Hillary had a Rolex, I never said he wore it to the top of Everest, but he had one, and he did many interesting thing other tha just walk up a big mountain. From the pictures it seems to have been worn it a lot....

The watch:


the man and the watch during his Antarctic adventures:

[Captainhowdy]

Well, there are loads of wis paying several thousands for the same sum of parts.
It is just that with this brand the charade is plain to see.
That in itself is obviously a personal choice as good as any.
It is how Veblen works.
Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good.
That is unfortunately also how Veblen works and should be identified on watch fora.

Sorry but your completely wrong, who are these wis paying thousands for a watch sold by a company they have no confidence in, where the warranty is worth less than the paper it's written on, where the customer\after sales support is non-existent, where sending it back for a service is not possible, where!?

[lysanderxiii]

PAN-AM pilots wear Rolex
Red Adair wears Rolex, as does Forsyth, Fleming, McQueen, Newman, The Rat Pack etc. etc.

Simply heroes of an era

Good point.

Add to that list PM Churchill, Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, famous pilot Yeager, Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and a vast number of other interesting types.

But, how did we know these "icons" wore Rolexes?

How many interesting people worn Omegas? Historically, Omega failed in this area.

[Itsguy]

From Wikipedia's entry on Thorstein Veblen:

"Fine (1994) writes that economists at the time complained that his ideas, while brilliantly presented, were crude, gross, fuzzy, and imprecise; others complained that he was a wacky eccentric. Scholars continue to debate what exactly he meant in his convoluted, ironic and satiric essays; he made heavy use of examples of primitive societies, but many examples were pure invention.[5]"

This all sounds hauntingly familiar. Not sure about the 'brilliantly presented' bit, but TZ surely qualifies as a primitive society.

[scarto]

Well, there are loads of wis paying several thousands for the same sum of parts.
It is just that with this brand the charade is plain to see.
That in itself is obviously a personal choice as good as any.
It is how Veblen works.
Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good.
That is unfortunately also how Veblen works and should be identified on watch fora.

Reckon you could start your own ongoing thread on this where you can 'educate' these poor noobs in perpetuity about what they apparently need to be taught about, and leave alone (not sabotage) other threads week in, week out? Sounds fair, no?

[keitht]

Good point.

Add that list PM Churchill, Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, famous pilot Yeager, Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and a vast number of other interesting types.

But, how did we know these "icons" wore Rolexes?

How many interesting people worn Omegas? Historically, Omega failed in this area.

As an aside i would be interested to know how many of those people, and any other emminent persons had watches supplied, issued or given or made the choice personally.

Eitherway it would still be testament to the brand in one way or another.

[andrew]

Reckon you could start your own ongoing thread on this where you can 'educate' these poor noobs in perpetuity about what they apparently need to be taught about, and leave alone (not sabotage) other threads week in, week out? Sounds fair, no?

I for one would be willing to pay anything up to £1 for a new subforum called "Veblen Talk". I think it would be a hoot.

[java]

Perhaps a sticky as follows may shut him up


Warning Some watches may cost you more than the sum of the parts

[Itsguy]

I for one would be willing to pay anything up to £1 for a new subforum called "Veblen Talk". I think it would be a hoot.

And I would be willing to pay anything up to £2, in order to demonstrate that I can afford to, thus gaining social status.

[java]

And I would be willing to pay anything up to £2, in order to demonstrate that I can afford to, thus gaining social status.

I will pay £5 provided I get a certificate with a nice label and we can establish that someone very important and interesting also has one.

[Dapper]

PAN-AM pilots wear Rolex
Red Adair wears Rolex, as does Forsyth, Fleming, McQueen, Newman, The Rat Pack etc. etc.

Simply heroes of an era

[jwg663]

This has been a very timeous thread; otherwise we'd be up to page seven on the thriller that's "What keyring?"

It's a bit of a curate's egg, though. The personal attacks are unwarranted (and undeserved, IMO). The comments re Invicta's integrity re COSC movements are also off colour. The thread however shows how much the forum has changed in my (near)
ten years of membership. It never used to be so (certain) brand conscious & was a much broader church in terms of watches discussed & purchased.

The OP posited an interesting question (albeit badly & using a bad example in Invicta):

Should an enthusiast be able to see past branding & marketing to the "pure" components of an item, in this case a watch?

The obvious answer to me is "Objectively, yes, the enthusiast should be able to do that." However, then all the other subjective distractions that have been discussed in the thread kick in & the answer becomes much more fuzzy.

I've also got a few questions that someone may be able to answer:

Who are Invicta's core market?

Do they have repeat customers?

Why do Invicta produce watches at higher cost per unit with features like COSC that are desirable to (lets be kind here) less than 1% of
their market?

What would have been the flow of the thread had the OP chosen a similarly specified used watch from a brand like Mido, Revue Thommen,
Chr. Ward or a micro brand?

[rob-vicar]

Yep heroes of an era, I'm glad it, or present day aren't my hero or era

[Andyg]

Yep heroes of an era, I'm glad it, or present day aren't my hero or era

Simple - if you no likey, you no buyie. No one if forcing you to part with your money!

Plus I doubt very much whether Rolex care if you chose not to buy a watch based upon the fact that one of its owners is a very sucessful fashion designer and writer/broadcaster who happens to be gay.

"The horror!!!" - a quote from Marlon Bando who happended to wear a Rolex GMT!! So does that make him gay as well???

Perhaps you should restrict your heros list to well balanced and thoughtful people like Cilla are you role model!! Perhap we should all do the same, then all this crap could be avoided. Hmmm monoculture - lovely.

[toezapper]

Slightly perplexed as to why folks just did not say: "sorry I disagree as I have before". Then just walk away and leave it. I am guessing this is a repeat of what has gone before, so just leave him to it. I am not sure if part of the intent was to try and make some folks on small budgets feel better about buying a brand like Invicta without feeling judged, because there was not enough of a description of purpose in the original post and may seem patronising. I will be generous (as I don't know the fella) in speculating that something gets lost in the slightly elaborated use of language that is not his first tongue. As a result he is unable to full articulate what specifically he meant. I dunno, I may well be wide of the mark, but he has not made my blood boil. The whole area is just riddled with personal interpretations of subjective judgements. When push comes to shove, it seems everyone is into watches for a whole heap of different reasons.

[ralphy]

Well, there are loads of wis paying several thousands for the same sum of parts.
It is just that with this brand the charade is plain to see.
That in itself is obviously a personal choice as good as any.
It is how Veblen works.
Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good.
That is unfortunately also how Veblen works and should be identified on watch fora.

I don’t suppose you’d be prepared to show some examples of this "Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good” would you? Unlikely I know, but it would be a refreshing change if you would back up your opinion with some facts for once.

Quite a change of position on your “Snobbism Illustrated” to now call the watch-brand a “charade that is plain to see”, isn’t it?

R

[Jim W]

I've just searched on ebag and see there are nearly 17,000 entries under Invicta Watch! Some are asking thousands of pounds for 18k and jewelled versions.

[Captainhowdy]

I don’t suppose you’d be prepared to show some examples of this "Domineering group delusion about it, amounting to misinforming BS is not good” would you? Unlikely I know, but it would be a refreshing change if you would back up your opinion with some facts for once.

Quite a change of position on your “Snobbism Illustrated” to now call the watch-brand a “charade that is plain to see”, isn’t it?

R

Don't hold your breath, I've asked for an answer, but nothing has been forthcoming so far.

[lysanderxiii]

Perhaps a sticky as follows may shut him up


Warning ALL watches WILL cost you more than the sum [value] of the parts

Fixed that for you....

[ralphy]

It had been attributed to John Glenn, but he actually never said that.

Thanks.

R

[rob-vicar]

Simple - if you no likey, you no buyie. No one if forcing you to part with your money!

Plus I doubt very much whether Rolex care if you chose not to buy a watch based upon the fact that one of its owners is a very sucessful fashion designer and writer/broadcaster who happens to be gay.

"The horror!!!" - a quote from Marlon Bando who happended to wear a Rolex GMT!! So does that make him gay as well???

Perhaps you should restrict your heros list to well balanced and thoughtful people like Cilla are you role model!! Perhap we should all do the same, then all this crap could be avoided. Hmmm monoculture - lovely.

If I no likey what? The celebrity association to a watch brand? Doesn't bother me either way I'm not that shallow. I no buyie? No need already ownie. And the only forced money extraction I face are taxes, but then again I choose to work and own stuff, so I guess partially my 'fault' too.

As to Marlon RIP he's dead so I choose to keep my opinions to myself out of respect.

Cilla well balanced and thoughtful? I have seen no evidence of this when the subject is Rolex. Or seen any evidence of any heroic action.

All do the same? Act the same, behave the same, think the same, that's communism, no thank you.

[adzman808]

as others have said Rolex scores with excellent marketing.

other brands haven't managed it.

Even today - the average Omega advert amounts too George Clooney choses Omega

whereas a Rolex advert is along the lines of

Bacon.

For thousands of years man was a forager, a hunter gatherer, then he learnt to sow, to grow, he learnt to keep animals, to barter these animals for produce and later currency

The farmer became the precursor of modern society.

Fred Blogs is a pig farmer, toiling hard to provide the world with bacon and keep the momentum of mankind alive.

Fred wears a Rolex.
_______________________

Rolex, the development of mankind, available at all good jewellers
_______________________

The others haven't even twigged on yet - let alone caught up

And what's Invictas marketing strategy? Just $49.99 for tonight only on the shopping channel, a great gift for a son or nephew, remember - you can't take it with you

And some people wonder how Rolex can charge the sweet spot that others can only dream of....

[forpetesake]

Slightly perplexed as to why folks just did not say: "sorry I disagree as I have before". Then just walk away and leave it. I am guessing this is a repeat of what has gone before, so just leave him to it. I am not sure if part of the intent was to try and make some folks on small budgets feel better about buying a brand like Invicta without feeling judged, because there was not enough of a description of purpose in the original post and may seem patronising. I will be generous (as I don't know the fella) in speculating that something gets lost in the slightly elaborated use of language that is not his first tongue. As a result he is unable to full articulate what specifically he meant. I dunno, I may well be wide of the mark, but he has not made my blood boil. The whole area is just riddled with personal interpretations of subjective judgements. When push comes to shove, it seems everyone is into watches for a whole heap of different reasons.

At one point during this thread, briefly, part of me wanted to buy that Invicta, with fingers raised, just to enjoy an imaginary moments silence here.
Sorry, sometimes it gets noisy here and I just need to go off and do my own thing regardless.
It was a shame that Huertecilla chose a product from that particular brand with which to make his point. I don't know the chap either and sometimes (though less and less) find myself making allowances because he is not using his native language. I can't help but admire his independence and tenacity though.
Enough...lets just celebrate watches.

[SternG]

I’ve only skimmed through this thread, God knows I’ve read enough Zilla threads to last me a lifetime. The comment that stands out IMO is the one about Zilla being one of the most influential posters on the forum (posts about Invicta are neither here nor there, we all know they’re cr@p).

HOW THE H€LL DID WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?

[andyb]

The OP posited an interesting question (albeit badly & using a bad example in Invicta):

Should an enthusiast be able to see past branding & marketing to the "pure" components of an item, in this case a watch?

The obvious answer to me is "Objectively, yes, the enthusiast should be able to do that." However, then all the other subjective distractions that have been discussed in the thread kick in & the answer becomes much more fuzzy.

I've also got a few questions that someone may be able to answer:

Who are Invicta's core market?

Do they have repeat customers?

Why do Invicta produce watches at higher cost per unit with features like COSC that are desirable to (lets be kind here) less than 1% of
their market?

What would have been the flow of the thread had the OP chosen a similarly specified used watch from a brand like Mido, Revue Thommen,
Chr. Ward or a micro brand?

After seeing some of the models posted and those available on Amazon I've been wondering the same thing. Why should they bother, what are we missing or don't "get"? Maybe they are more favourably looked on in US forums?

Echoing the first part of your post a little and not wishing to put words into the OP's mouth, but I often wonder if it's questioning, intelligent posts like this that are expected in response.

[toezapper]

....... Enough...lets just celebrate watches.

I do so like this bit. Marvellous sentiment "Pete".

[lysanderxiii]

Some telling statistics:

14% of Swiss watch exports go the Americas. That's both North and South America.
21% of Japanese watch exports go to North America (Canada, Mexico and the US).

The world's GDP is around 70,000,000 million US$.
The US GDP is about 17,000,000 million US$, or about a quarter of the world's GDP.

Americans, don't appear to care about watches, even less about expensive ones.

[jk103]

It's funny once again ole Zilla has gotten his way with a thread discussing Rolex and marketing and several pages of nothing substantial added to the debate. Even funnier he is now one of the most influential posters on the forum as Stern has pointed out .

This thread is a candidate for the classic posts forum.

[ralphy]

I’ve only skimmed through this thread, God knows I’ve read enough Zilla threads to last me a lifetime. The comment that stands out IMO is the one about Zilla being one of the most influential posters on the forum (posts about Invicta are neither here nor there, we all know they’re cr@p).

HOW THE H€LL DID WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN?

Freedom of speech, each one is entitled to their opinion.

R

[Daddelvirks]

Freedom of speech, each one is entitled to their opinion.

R

And although it's sometimes annoying, THANK GOD FOR THAT!

Daddel.

[Huertecilla]

And although it's sometimes annoying, THANK GOD FOR THAT!

Daddel.

The mind is like a parachute Daddel.