Automatic vs quartz

[phrozen06]

All Rolex Watches are COSC certified as some Invicta's are too. Your high end invictas have the Valjoux 7750,51' or 52 movements, SW500, or Tourbillion movements. Invicta watches cover an insanely wide range of prices and sizes too. I wouldn't compare invicta to Ebay. That's a stretch.

[KUNU]

If you want a good watch that will last forever get a Breilting. I have a Super Avenger and wear it every day. Whats the point of have a nice watch if it just sits in a box all the time. Get a good watch winder if you are not going to wear it daily.

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I'm sure there is, but if I had to guess (and this is a wild but educated guess) I'd say most of the money that goes towards paying for a Rolex goes towards paying for the name and not necessarily for the quality of the materials or the method of manufacturing the watch.

If watches were priced purely on quality, the Invicta would cost, I don't know, $75 and the Rolex would cost $180.

But the retail price of the Invicta is $200 and the retail price of the Rolex is $10,000.

I have no problem believing that the Rolex is actually superior to the Invicta from a quality standpoint, but it's probably not $10,000 superior. It's probably not even $5000 superior or $3000 superior.

There is no comparison between Invicta and Rolex. Their designs are taken directly from Rolex and others. Like previously stated, Rolex is more than a brand although their marketing has done an amazing job at keeping it on the top of the list of aspirational purchases. The movement is reliable and time tested, they use 904L stainless steel- the most expensive in the world, and their designs are timeless (and most copied and counterfeited)

Is a submariner worth $8k? That's subjective- the people that buy them seem to think so. Is an M3 worth the price over a Ford Focus? People that don't understand the mechanical marvel of automatic movements will almost never get it. It's not about accuracy and it's not about price. An automatic will never be as accurate as a quartz and you can but an automatic watch for a few hundred.

Many people who are into cars are into watches. I would even go as far as saying that the people who buy a car and dress it up for looks rather than performance would be more inclined to buy an Invicta over the original design submariner. That isn't to say that some people just don't have the means to buy an $8k sub and buy something more affordable but as soon as they can afford it, they will certainly buy one.

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by phrozen06

All Rolex Watches are COSC certified as some Invicta's are too. Your high end invictas have the Valjoux 7750,51' or 52 movements, SW500, or Tourbillion movements. Invicta watches cover an insanely wide range of prices and sizes too. I wouldn't compare invicta to Ebay. That's a stretch.

I do understand Invicta does make some quality watches. However, their practice of ripping off designs from high-end watchmakers have ruined their brand image, at least for me, which is a reason why I will never buy a watch from them. Like I have mentioned, some of their practices in order to make their watches appear more sophisticated than they actually are, are downright lame.

[shagandyl]

Automatic = M3 Quartz = Yugo

[1MOREMOD]

i have both and prefer the mechanical watches just because of the cool factor. if im looking for a serious watch i look for an auto but i have lots of fun lower price watches also, tw steel, nixon, luminox that are quartz and i enjoy them as well. what i like to find is autos with good value, hamilton, tissot, stowa and the like.

[David70]

High end watches aren't much different than any other high end product. Summing up the parts doesn't come up with a good rational for the total.

I am not into $2000 shoes, $1000 shirts, $500 belts or anything else really high end. I could afford to go higher end than I do but for me I have a hard time with the "value" in them. The $10k watch may work well and tell time really well but so will a $500 watch. I have had a Tissot for about 7 years, battery was replaced once (hardly a burden), I am happy with how it looks and tells time close to perfectly. I can't see a lot of rational to spending 10x a much for a better looking watch (or a really complex movement) but some do.

Since the company I works for deals with a lot of stainless steel I thought the 904L stainless in the Rolex is interesting. Best I can tell, unless you spend a lot of time in salt water wearing your Rolex or with your hands in sulfuric or nitric acid (the metal on your watch will be ok, good luck with your hands) this also seems to be more interesting than a value.

[Devious21]

Best way I've heard it put.

A quartz watch is an instrument that tells you exactly what time it is. No magic, no romance, just the proper time. For many people that is more than enough. Even for me, some of the time, that is enough.
A mechanical watch, on the other hand, is precision machinery that has been carefully adjusted by an expert to the point that it keeps accurate time, despite temperature changes, despite being kept in different positions vs. gravity, and despite being carried around on your wrist, bumping into walls, etc. I think a mechanical watch is a small bit of evidence of man's triumph over the forces of chaos, of skill and precision, and of intelligent design.

All that, and it tells you what time it is, more or less...

My work continually involves me with high technology, electronics, computers, etc. I like to rebel against this world in certain small ways--wearing a mechanical watch, using a fountain pen, etc. Small things, but they are a source of joy amidst the problems of balky computers, lazy mailservers, overloaded DNSs, inaccurate test equipment, out of spec components, loused up shipping arrangements, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

[Rookie84]

Originally Posted by Devious21

Best way I've heard it put.

That indeed was great. Thanks for sharing.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by David70

High end watches aren't much different than any other high end product. Summing up the parts doesn't come up with a good rational for the total.

I am not into $2000 shoes, $1000 shirts, $500 belts or anything else really high end. I could afford to go higher end than I do but for me I have a hard time with the "value" in them. The $10k watch may work well and tell time really well but so will a $500 watch. I have had a Tissot for about 7 years, battery was replaced once (hardly a burden), I am happy with how it looks and tells time close to perfectly. I can't see a lot of rational to spending 10x a much for a better looking watch (or a really complex movement) but some do.

Since the company I works for deals with a lot of stainless steel I thought the 904L stainless in the Rolex is interesting. Best I can tell, unless you spend a lot of time in salt water wearing your Rolex or with your hands in sulfuric or nitric acid (the metal on your watch will be ok, good luck with your hands) this also seems to be more interesting than a value.

Most wealthy people are the same way. You're in good company.

[DocMick]

if you like high end watches, go automatic

if you dont care, get a quartz

theres really no rational reason to buy a watch that costs thousands of dollars... it's the watch bug and there's no cure for it

lastly, open heart watches are pointless, don't buy them

[EyeGuy]

"Friends don't let friends wear invicta."
IMO any quartz over 1k is not a good buy, especially when you can get a descent auto for $500. I still don't get how tag heur does it.

[PINeely]

As far as keeping time goes, quartz is superior. A well-balanced, quality mech is not that far behind but more a piece of jewelry. Pragmatic versus poetic. I have both and wear both, but I take a much higher sense of enjoyment from my automatics. They're like a very personal little machine that takes on a personality of its own after a while.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by EyeGuy

"Friends don't let friends wear invicta."
IMO any quartz over 1k is not a good buy, especially when you can get a descent auto for $500. I still don't get how tag heur does it.

Probably because 99.99% of people on earth don't spend more than a few hundred bucks (max) on a watch.

Do you guys think spending > $1,000 on a watch is the norm? It's not even the norm among (liquid) millionaires.

[eric@helix]

The reason to get an automatic watch is not practical: it's the love of the mechanism and heritage of fine watchmaking. When you buy and wear an automatic, you understand that it'll be more expensive in the short and long term.

I have both. My daily is a quartz Alpina Avalanche chrono. It's really durable while I bang around the shop. I also have an Avalanche automatic chrono (I like Alpina, as you can tell) that I wear on nice occasions.

[David70]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Most wealthy people are the same way. You're in good company.

I am not wealthy and I spend money on other things that aren't wise investments also, just not expensive watches.

Wife and I went on a vacation to Argentina not too long ago, probably cost about $7k and was about 9 days long. Many of the same things could be said about expensive vacations as the high end watch.

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Probably because 99.99% of people on earth don't spend more than a few hundred bucks (max) on a watch.

Do you guys think spending > $1,000 on a watch is the norm? It's not even the norm among (liquid) millionaires.

Still referring to Thomas Stanley? The guy who insists on getting to the millionaire status means depriving yourself of anything worth working for. In his chapter about avoid buying status objector leading a status lifestyle, did you think he was only talking about watches? I can sell my Daytona for more than I paid - Can you do that with a cheap watch or your BMW?

You preach his bullshit yet you drive a BMW? Are the rest of your life-lessons as ironic?

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by RR-NYC

Still referring to Thomas Stanley? The guy who insists on getting to the millionaire status means depriving yourself of anything worth working for. In his chapter about avoid buying status objector leading a status lifestyle, did you think he was only talking about watches? I can sell my Daytona for more than I paid - Can you do that with a cheap watch or your BMW?

You preach his bullshit yet you drive a BMW? Are the rest of your life-lessons as ironic?

It's a statistic. Regardless of whether or not you like the guy, he cites a statistic (and sources it in the book) and that's that.

I drive the car that I drive because as a percentage of my net worth it's miniscule. I drive a car that's well below my means. You can't look at the brand of car that I drive and imply that I'm being hypocritical.

And I'm thrilled that you've made a positive return on your watch, but by and large watches are awful investments and lose anywhere from 20-30% of their value the minute you walk out of the store. The same is true for cars, of course, but the difference is that functionally speaking there are numerous, tangible benefits to driving an entry level luxury sedan versus, I don't know, a base honda civic.

I can't get stock acceleration of 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and a comparable interior for much less than the cost of the 335i. If I could (and provided that I liked the look of the car) I'd totally consider the cheaper car.

I can get an automatic for $500-$1000 of comparable quality (and one that is functionally equivalent) to a $4000 or $5000 watch.

Honestly though you sound incredibly bitter about a statistic. Why? No one's stopping you from spending an exorbitant percentage of your income on a watch. Go buy whatever makes you happy.

The post that you quoted me in had nothing to do with belittling your choice for spending thousands of dollars on a watch, so I don't know why you bothered to quote it. I was merely stating the fact that most wealthy people don't spend more than a few hundred bucks on a watch to explain why <$1000 watches are in sufficiently high demand.

I don't care about your conspicuous consumption habits so stop dragging me into your bullshit. I didn't question you or anyone who buys multi-thousand dollar watches in the quote that you posted. I mean I did initially, but that was several posts ago and I received some nice perspectives from watch aficionados like Rookie84.

If it makes you feel better to be willfully ignorant of a statistic, then fine. Here's a fake statistic if it makes you feel better: millionaires spend a median of $100,000 on a watch. It doesn't matter to me either way. I was simply trying to explain why tag heur has a sufficiently large market to tap at the ~$500-1000 level, the implication being that if millionaires spend a median of a couple of hundred bucks on a watch, then people at lower levels likely spend no more than a couple of hundred bucks on a watch as well.

[originalgoods13]

I can tell you now that a $500-1000 automatic is not comparable to a quality and level of details on a $4,000 automatic

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by originalgoods13

I can tell you now that a $500-1000 automatic is not comparable to a quality and level of details on a $4,000 automatic

I've got a bridge to sell you

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

It's a statistic. Regardless of whether or not you like the guy, he cites a statistic (and sources it in the book) and that's that.

I drive the car that I drive because as a percentage of my net worth it's miniscule. I drive a car that's well below my means. You can't look at the brand of car that I drive and imply that I'm being hypocritical.

And I'm thrilled that you've made a positive return on your watch, but by and large watches are awful investments and lose anywhere from 20-30% of their value the minute you walk out of the store. The same is true for cars, of course, but the difference is that functionally speaking there are numerous, tangible benefits to driving an entry level luxury sedan versus, I don't know, a base honda civic.

I can't get stock acceleration of 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and a comparable interior for much less than the cost of the 335i. If I could (and provided that I liked the look of the car) I'd totally consider the cheaper car.

I can get an automatic for $500-$1000 of comparable quality (and one that is functionally equivalent) to a $4000 or $5000 watch.

Honestly though you sound incredibly bitter about a statistic. Why? No one's stopping you from spending an exorbitant percentage of your income on a watch. Go buy whatever makes you happy.

The post that you quoted me in had nothing to do with belittling your choice for spending thousands of dollars on a watch, so I don't know why you bothered to quote it. I was merely stating the fact that most wealthy people don't spend more than a few hundred bucks on a watch to explain why <$1000 watches are in sufficiently high demand.

I don't care about your conspicuous consumption habits so stop dragging me into your bullshit. I didn't question you or anyone who buys multi-thousand dollar watches in the quote that you posted. I mean I did initially, but that was several posts ago and I received some nice perspectives from watch aficionados like Rookie84.

If it makes you feel better to be willfully ignorant of a statistic, then fine. Here's a fake statistic if it makes you feel better: millionaires spend a median of $100,000 on a watch. It doesn't matter to me either way. I was simply trying to explain why tag heur has a sufficiently large market to tap at the ~$500-1000 level, the implication being that if millionaires spend a median of a couple of hundred bucks on a watch, then people at lower levels likely spend no more than a couple of hundred bucks on a watch as well.

Am I bitter about your posts? No but I am annoyed at your level of ignorance on the matter. You rely so heavily on skewed data. Conspicuous consumption... did you conned out of $$$ by those get rich in real estate courses and then find religion in those financial self-help books that focus on anti-consumerism?

You cite this book in several watch threads with the sole purpose of (1) talking about them as being for wannabe millionaires or (2) finding someone else who, along with you, doesn't see the value in spending >$1000 on a watch. If you don't like watches or think that spending money on a watch is stupid, why are you on these threads?

I certainly wouldn't call it a statistic. Dr. Stanley's data nothing more than a poll that he designed to prove his point and nothing else. I can design a similar "statistic" that would show the exact opposite: My millionaires poll only wear >$10,000 watches yet don't own a primary home and where no millionaire drives a car let alone owns a car but belong to a car club that allows them to drive every exotic car under the sun. Their net worth is $3M+ vs Stanley's $1.6M (in his first book, he does include primary home in that number). Granted, these are all kids in Manhattan with heavy portfolios and 7 digit wall street bonus checks so it isn't indicative of the population at large but neither is Stanley's.

Oh, and Stanley's millionaires average a whopping $131k a year at 50+ years old... its no wonder he doesn't want them to buy anything because they are all too busy not spending money in order to be in his "Millionaire" club". Yet, he disparages those making $500k a year for buying things they enjoy and can afford but didn't want to divulge their net worth to a quackjob PhD

[RR-NYC]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

I've got a bridge to sell you

You are proving nothing but showing ignorance.

Look at a movement on a $500 automatic and compare it with any Rolex movement. The $500 movement might look nice, but thats all its designed to do. It will be a useless scrap of cheap metal in a couple years if that whereas the Rolex movement is rather ugly to look at but will last 30+ years without anything more than occasional service.

Just keep telling yourself that the cheap watch on your wrist is the same and you might find someone to believe it--- and thats who will buy your bridge.