Reply With QuoteDW-5600C (Keanu Reeves -Speed)
thats what hat got me started
Does associating a watch with a specific person push up demand and desirability?
There are a few examples where the prices seem really high; Rolex 1655 (McQueen), Heuer Autavia (Siffert),Omega 105.003 (Ed White).
Would there be less of a buzz around these watches if the association wasn't there?
DW-5600C (Keanu Reeves -Speed)
thats what hat got me started
Well, I think that there is no doubt that it does. For example, Rolex have sold a lot of Subs off the back of James Bond. Then Omega took over and it carried on.
Associations certainly help but, hopefully, a good design will always do well anyway.
Its not an original question, but it remains a good one.
To the heart of the question:-
Yes, it obviously does to a high enough percentage of the target market of the watch manufacturers - or they wouldn't bother diverting such vast funds to employ brand ambassadors. If celebrity isn't your thing, they'll reel you in with any one of a number of other angles - heritage being a favourite, and the "I just buy what I like and advertising doesn't affect me" brigade being the easiest target.
An amusing thing to observe is the abundance of celebrity ad campaign haters who would give their souls for a "Bond" or a "McQueen" or buy a watch because it was once worn by a soldier or an employee of a diving company or has a defective dial/bezel finish.
I love this hobby and its messed-up addicts!
I bought my Kobold Polar Surveyour due to the link with Ranulph Feinnes... But if I look through the rest of the watxh box, there aren't any other celeb links that I'm aware of in the collection.
But there's no way it doesn't work, or it wouldn't exist.
Re-reading the OP though, perhaps you're taking about vintage associations? The McQueen 1655 is always laughable, no connection at all.
Sometimes an association can both increase and decrease desirability.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/exp...ops-watch.html
Not to me. I'd rather a watch grow to be associated with me and not to an unknown
Gray
Gary glitter's timex? No thanks.
That's a great story.Originally Posted by wajhart
Yes.
Basis for that:
1. Bond and the Rolex sub, even 'Nato' strap fashion.
2. The vast amounts of money invested in 'ambassadors' by the best marketing machines in the world; they would not if it did not pay off handsomely.
imho NO !
although at some point i'm going to try an smp in spite of the bond sillyness.
The other side of the coin; A mate of mine has a Patek for sale. One of ten in the world. Gold. All good things. However, Christies refused to list it as it has Saddam Hussains name on the dial!
Although that said, its probably worth more than a standard Patek.
Of course. Maybe not amongst watch collectors (or anything collectors), but to Joe Public on the street it illuminates a brand.
The same way clothing brands appeal more to the masses if celebrities are seen wearing them.
Barbour jacket sales went through the roof after Skyfall - already popular, but the sheep all had to have them because Bond had one.
It transfers to anything, It's said that Knight Rider saved Pontiac in the 80's with the new model trans-Am.
Make anything 'popular culture' by tacking a celebrity to it, it becomes popular.
Except this;
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...oOCeYv2g0NgjbA
+1. A cheap nylon strap that was the wrong size sourced by a flustered production runner in a local shop because the bracelet didn't fit Sean's wrist, has led to a veritable ocean of dialogue and obsession into reproducing same from a couple of frames of footage lit by his lighter. Mad altogether. Lovely watch mind you, pity about the bought in a Pound shop strap.
It's not just the usual Bond suspects either. The Roger Moore era digitals, no matter how daft, go for way more than one might expect. If Jimmy Bond is attached add "value".
The Heuer Monaco another example. Stuck on Steve's wrist by a propmaster in the pocket of Jack Heuer, unwittingly aided by Steve himself, because he didn't want to wear his Omega lest they make hay with the association. Like that worked out... He was well peed off about it too, even at the time and got well cranky when the same propmaster was handing out freebie examples of the watch to crew members with his name attached. Steve, being a pretty cool guy had Omega's, Rolex's and a 1940's Hanhart chrono that he seemed to wear a lot. Yet all, even the usually crazily priced vintage Rolex, can be had for less than the vintage Heuer*. The Hanhart beats the lot of them on coolness and history IMHO and a vintage example would be a lot cheaper to source than the hyped up Heuer. Don't get me wrong I like the Heuer Monaco, but one look at my collection would tell you taste is not exactly high on my list of criteria. :D
Panerai got a major boost from Stallone IIRC too. Turned the brand around in a big way.
This.
I remember the yuppie vibe in the 80's when Barbour became dead fash overnight. I had one before all that, because my dad had one and when we went fishing in the March rain they were welcome. He described it as a great "oilskin", which was his term for the type(after he passed away I gave his jacket to a great mate of mine who was the same size and who digs that kinda thing and to this day it's still going strong :)). Suddenly I became fashionable, particularly because mine was well fecked by use, even in my mid teens. As a growing lad I needed a new one at 18 and as usual I went to our fishing tackle bloke and bought one for IIRC 80 quid(expensive at the time), but the exact same jacket was 200 quid in the highly fashionable high end shops in Dublin at the same time. That really hit home for my young mind. That difference between reality and BS and it can be quite the gulf.
Today? If somebody gifted me one of the same Rolexes Sean Connery wore in the flics? I'd hop up and down with joy, because they are a very cool watch from that period, but no way would I put it on an undersized strap. A Nato maybe, as they have been a fave for me since the mid 90's and fit me well, but if the bracelet was included? I'd likely wet myself. :D
*in my time, I've had a few vintage Heuers. They're an OK watch and some are well funky, but they were generally an assembler, rather than a "house" company, quality is variable and not close to the TAG stuff. Never mind the old Heuer "records" and I use the word under advisement are... well, crap.
A very cool horologic milestone watch indeed in several aspects.
That 6538 is unobtanium though; very much because it is the ancestor of the Bond sub hype.
Because of this several manufacturers offer homages; Steinhart, O&W, Wilson Watch Works HR, MKII, even Rolex themselves (Tudor Black Bay).
I prefer mine on a curved end Tropic type.
For the sheer fun of it, also have the regimental G10 and a rivet type bracelet which took a bit of modding to fit.
The Tropic type is by far the best match and most comfortable. Imo the nylon strap wears crap; puts the head a notch higher up, even with just the one loop of the G10 design.
Anyway; it all proves the point. Name tagging creates a strong image. Even when it is a fictional character. Perhaps more so because there is not so much negative association like with a real person?
One thing has always striken me as very odd: A stainless steel Rolex Chronograph wristwatch, ref. 6238 was used for the movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). This has however slid off the watch as if coated with teflon.
Btw the Nato rave is a bit odd too since in Dr. No (and From Russia With Love), Connery wears his Submariner on a croc band yet THAT is today a bit of a NoNo. Odd no, from Dr.No to NoNo whereas the misfitting G10 is now a main stream rage.
Here the Kingston on a Hirsch croc with an assortment of other props from the Dr.No movie:
Last edited by Huertecilla; 28th February 2015 at 02:29.
Even if it increases desirability for you, consider explaining your purchasing decision to your Son or Grandson.
Edit: Or Daughter or Grand daughter.
That wisdom does not change the fact on a scale larger than your own micro cosmos.
Over here in Spain the 'Golden Casio' became such a hot fashion item overnight that it caught out Casio when a tv presenter considered cool donned it on her wrist.
Now several years later it still is. Daughters and granddaughters have one too.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 28th February 2015 at 07:16.
Amen to the Kobold.
I think I might pop mine off the bracelet onto the GGB again - nice pic!Amen to the Kobold.
Is the watch well known so the celeb wears it or is it well known because the celeb has one.
I'm sure that there will be many who are influenced by the association but TBH it's more likely to dissuade me than tempt me.
Again, the issue is larger than one's own personal micro cosmos.
The McQueen Explorer is perhaps THE best example of the association with a famous person sells. There is no creal connection at all and the association as CREATED by an Italian dealer to SELL such a watch BECAUSE it DOES.
Fom there it has now become a byword for an orange hour hand and even such a modified Explorer sells easier because of the wholly invented tag.
Likewise the Timothy Dalton TAG's haven't taken off but then Moore Seiko's didn't for ages till Rolex I gues became unobtanium? Maybe they are sleepers that given time and next generation will rise as well...A very cool horologic milestone watch indeed in several aspects.
That 6538 is unobtanium though; very much because it is the ancestor of the Bond sub hype.
Because of this several manufacturers offer homages; Steinhart, O&W, Wilson Watch Works HR, MKII, even Rolex themselves (Tudor Black Bay).
I prefer mine on a curved end Tropic type.
For the sheer fun of it, also have the regimental G10 and a rivet type bracelet which took a bit of modding to fit.
The Tropic type is by far the best match and most comfortable. Imo the nylon strap wears crap; puts the head a notch higher up, even with just the one loop of the G10 design.
Anyway; it all proves the point. Name tagging creates a strong image. Even when it is a fictional character. Perhaps more so because there is not so much negative association like with a real person?
One thing has always striken me as very odd: A stainless steel Rolex Chronograph wristwatch, ref. 6238 was used for the movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). This has however slid off the watch as if coated with teflon.
Btw the Nato rave is a bit odd too since in Dr. No (and From Russia With Love), Connery wears his Submariner on a croc band yet THAT is today a bit of a NoNo. Odd no, from Dr.No to NoNo whereas the misfitting G10 is now a main stream rage.
Here the Kingston on a Hirsch croc with an assortment of other props from the Dr.No movie:
Over times the films weren't well received but I don't mind them at all and they will find new audiences who won't be aware of the negativity that surrounded them... I like living daylights ok.. Made watchable by Maryam d'abo who was lush ... But licence to kill was a pretty tough bond action movie and I liked that too....probably most bond related pieces will hold up well at least holding price if not sub ultra prices..
Last edited by lordloz; 28th February 2015 at 11:41.
Simply put; ALL 'Bond' models are more desirable than their non such litter mates, proving that even an association with a unpopular version of a fictional character STILL increases desirability. Even the Seiko LCDs!
This and the McQueen hoax are as clear an answer as it comes.
Though actually, the blue Aqua Terra being in Skyfall slightly puts me of an otherwise beautiful watch, as I don't want to look like a 007 wannabe (I expect most men are 007 wannabes really, but there's no need to shout about it). So the principle doesn't always work but in general it does or famous people wouldn't get so much free stuff.
Well... wannabee yes but not necessarily 007. I think the crux of the thing is not about the Bond character.
The 007 character does things men do or like to do. The character in the films is modeled on real world 'manly' behavior, whether real or aspired, which was such long before the character was developed on the silver screen.
As such the Bond thing is more a primordial manly extract. The character is so successful because it appeals to THAT. It is not the other way around.
I dont know does it? mmmm Breitling and Beckham?
That's the trouble with brand association if you can't bear the celeb involved....I like beckhams as much as I like watching football or anything connected with it or them.....I dont know does it? mmmm Breitling and Beckham?
id like a Bentley by Breitling watch at some stage as we have two....but the Beckham connection actively puts me off Belstaff and Breitling etc...
Senna wearing a tag however made me want one back in the 80's so I got one...
Last edited by lordloz; 1st March 2015 at 00:33.
What McQueen hoax?
Gok Wan and Bond both wear submariners so that's why it must be popular here.
You mean you don't KNOW???
http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2010/2/...-included.html
Oh, and I cook with gas :-)
Good marketing is just good story-telling. As someone all too familiar with the way these stories are created and constructed, I think it's all about credibility and authenticity. I can forgive Bond/Submariner and McQueen/Monaco because of the iconography and the era, but I do look at DiCaprio working with Tag and Kidman with Omega and shake my head. Beckham/Breitling is another good example. I'd love to say that most people see through it and write it off as vacuous nonsense, but then the counter-argument is that watch brands must do this kind of thing because they know it works. I've had first-hand experience of how watch brands spend their marketing budgets and I was utterly astonished at the lack of metrics and measurement. So in truth, they probably don't know if it works or not...I dont know does it? mmmm Breitling and Beckham?
SGR
Wow that is some collectors item. Surely in years to come that will be worth a lot!!!
Yes it does. just in the same way women buy perfume, shoes, handbags worn by actresses, models, etc. it's called marketing
Clearly watches with a story (military, Comex, etc) are sort by people on the basis of their history as much as anything else. However these watches typically are of exceptional quality to have been selected in the first place.
Sames goes watches once actually owned by famous people - hence why someone paid mega bucks for Steve McQueens actual 5512 or Eric Claptons Daytona.
As for people buying the same model. The fact that there is a premium is simply because they are More desirable and in some cases very rare. Supply and demand. A Newman Daytona, McQueen Hanhart, a SlyTech or an Arnie AP to name a few, are all rare, and it's reflected in the price.
On the topic of the 1655 - although called a McQueen, I have never seen a photo of him wearing one, so the association with McQueen is very questionable. If you want a real McQueen watch buy a 5512 or a Hanhart.
At the end of the day buy what you like, plus you never know you might become famous and your watch will increase in value.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I think a lot of people here owned a Sub before Gok. And James Bond stopped wearing his about 1980.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I'd have paid a tenner more for my Seadweller if I'd known Claudia Schiffer had worn it in the shower......
He did not like the uni-directional bezel it begot then ;-)
Last edited by Huertecilla; 28th February 2015 at 18:47.
No.
But I think it's human nature to seek out associations sometimes.
Andy there's no shame in letting your inner Gok peek through.
As mentioned about it depends who.
Neil Armstrong - yes.
Archie Luxury - no.
Hear, hearSenna wearing a tag however made me want one back in the 80's so I got one...
I have no idea about the association between watches & people, and frankly I wouldn't care. I buy a watch because I like it. A so-called celebrity has no more qualifications or expertise than I do, so why that would influence my decision making is beyond me. Then again I am not a teenager any more.
...and man's nature to seek out peer approval on watch fora the rest of the time?
Except of course the englightened special ones, keep up the good work.
The final decision to proceed with a purchase is made inside one's own micro cosmos Huertecilla. The larger scale influences to which you refer merely raise awareness of the product.That wisdom does not change the fact on a scale larger than your own micro cosmos.
Over here in Spain the 'Golden Casio' became such a hot fashion item overnight that it caught out Casio when a tv presenter considered cool donned it on her wrist.
Now several years later it still is. Daughters and granddaughters have one too.
It's natural to resist any suggestion that we are anything but independently minded. It's hard enough to admit to ourselves that we are influenced by marketing, never mind to others. The particular stimuli we respond to and the way our minds process them is highly personal - and perhaps says more about us than we care to reveal - that's why we are so defensive about what we have bought.
For example - Vanity might like me to believe that I am too 'smart' to be played by whichever watch brand has paid the most to a film maker to have their product placed on the wrist of the leading man. But...in everyday encounters I'm not above noticing the kind of watch worn by those whose achievements I respect - and I don't just mean commercial success.
Perhaps our obsession with this aspect of watch ownership is an unhealthy distraction from the simple pleasures of actually wearing the damn things. Perhaps it's peddled by those who seek to understand it better so they can shift more product. Perhaps we would be happier to avoid this type of 'deconstruction' less the magic evaporates.
My subs date from 1967 and 1982 - so perhaps Gok needed to let his inner Andy shine through.Andy there's no shame in letting your inner Gok peek through.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Havent you got a petticoat that you can go shove a hand up rather than starting this cycle again?
There is a gold Seiko that Bond (Roger Moore) presented to Prince Charles at a premier that would play the Bond theme - wonder what cupboard it's in?
Speaking of gold watches
Well put.
NONE of escapes the influence of the surrounding although it has different effects on individuals. Nevertheless we only need look at the way we dress in the context of different decades to get the blanket influence of environment.
Yes, let us just wear the crap out of the fashion accessories of our choice regardless of the motivation which is only partly truely OURS anyway.
Ah!!! The infamous Seiko DSSD!!!
Guess some are different. It turns me off...
Posting Permissions
