In a post from a few days ago, I noticed that someone mentioned that they were afraid to post about their dislike of the Tudor BB58 for fear of downvoting. You know what? The BB is a boring watch that’s not worth the money, and Tudor wouldn’t be half as popular as it is without the connection to Rolex. If Rolexes were as attainable as they were in past years, cut that by a factor of 10. Would you really buy a BB if the reality were that you could just save a little bit more and get a Rolex Submariner? That’s my hot take. What’s yours?
There’s no such thing as “value for money” in the luxury watch space. All luxury watches are overpriced - that is the whole point of “luxury” - duh. Speaking along the same lines, I saw a reviewer try to justify the price difference between two dive watches because one was METAS certified whilst the other was only COSC certified - literally for 99.999% of people this won’t make a difference. Most of these luxury watch goobers take their watches off to wash their hands.
You say that now, but when I’m exactly 1.5 seconds late to the big meeting and you’re 3.75 seconds late, you’ll wish your watch had this kind of accuracy.
laughs in f91
smirks in Casio F91w
Just because most people won’t know the difference doesn’t mean that there isn’t a justification in the price difference. You could say that about laymen in anything. METAS certification has more testing and I’m assuming it costs more.
Mmm plenty of people work near large magnets and the metas cert guarantees protection from 15000 gauss, or an MRI. And the fact that each cased up watch gets in water resistance tested is a plus.
I mean… sure but if that’s your use case due to work then you’re probably better served by a digital Casio than a luxury dive watch. I could time my lifts at the gym with the bezel on my SMP but I still use an Apple Watch for that because it’s a better fit for the job.
I think you’re conflating “relative value” with “absolute value.” Sure, a $5k mechanical watch can’t compete with a cheap quartz if the metric is timekeeping. But if you’re comparing multiple different luxury watches for finishing, accuracy, and other specs, there’s bound to be models that are offering more features for less money.
The anti-magnetism part of the METAS testing is particularly silly, completely pointless and just for marketing.
This is so wrong. When I’m at my weekend home in the Mariana Trench (seasonal, of course) I frequently rely on my watch. How else would I gauge the depths, time, and pressure? With much more modern, precise, computerized equipment in the submersible? Pshaw.
For real. Certification flies out the window once your new watch gets banged around, even slightly.
Hey, I’m a nurse and I need a watch that can handle a good wash 50 times a day.
Yeah people don’t understand that the price of a luxury good can be a feature. If you could buy a Patek for $100 no one would care about it. People crave the exclusivity… marketing at its finest lol
Exactly, and for the 0.0001% of people for whom it actually does matter, they’d be better off getting a G shock or something because it’ll be more durable, keep better time, more readable in the dark, longer lasting battery, etc. No point in talking about practicality for something that’s inherently impractical.