Buying a Grand Seiko

[Neil.C]

I had a nice chat with the manager of the new Seiko boutique in Knightsbridge - a nice guy and an enthusiast. He assured me this 'unrecognised' quality is set to change next year. No details, but I presume that means the push into boutiques will be backed up by a significant marketing campaign making the brand much more visible.

TBH they have been saying that for years.

GS have been extant since the '60's so if people don't know them by now...

My contention has always been that the Seiko name has held them back. Not perhaps to enthusiasts but to the general public.

[Itsguy]

TBH they have been saying that for years.

GS have been extant since the '60's so if people don't know them by now...

My contention has always been that the Seiko name has held them back. Not perhaps to enthusiasts but to the general public.

Almost certainly it has, as a luxury brand. But now they've changed the logo on the dials they've at least got a fighting chance of differentiating the brand, quality and price point in the minds of the public. Of course it still says Seiko, just with a different font and logo, but at least people know they can make watches and are a big player. It's also very hard launching a luxury brand that people don't know at all. A lot will depend on the marketing spend in the end.

[Neil.C]

Almost certainly it has, as a luxury brand. But now they've changed the logo on the dials they've at least got a fighting chance of differentiating the brand, quality and price point in the minds of the public. Of course it still says Seiko, just with a different font and logo, but at least people know they can make watches and are a big player. It's also very hard launching a luxury brand that people don't know at all. A lot will depend on the marketing spend in the end.

I think that they should have gone with a different name personally a la Lexus or whatever.

However with a multi national conglomerate like Seiko they can afford a luxury brand without really worrying about sales too much as opposed to some much smaller companies.

[Itsguy]

I think that they should have gone with a different name personally a la Lexus or whatever.

However with a multi national conglomerate like Seiko they can afford a luxury brand without really worrying about sales too much as opposed to some much smaller companies.

I think they are serious and want it to work if they are doing it, it will be eating resources and management time. Of course, the GS range is partly advertising for all their other watches, the 'halo effect' of showing they can do high end pieces as well as anyone else. But at the same time, they must have been looking at the explosion of interest in luxury and wanting a part of it. All those old names bought and revived to create luxury heritage brands, when they have one ready made with a great history and story, lots of collectable old models, and movements that are in-house. They already have Credor as a non-seiko dialled brand, GS has the heritage, which has become a big selling point for many brands, as well as the latest movements, something old combined with something new. While they can afford to treat it as advertising to some extent, if they are going to make boutiques where half the floor space is GS, and really push into the Western market, I'm guessing this is not intended as a hobby for them, they have a business to run in the end!

[markrlondon]

It seems to me that they need to do a lot of advertising to improve public awareness of GS. It will be interesting to see how much they do and where it is. I'm thinking mainstream evening tv advertising, as well as magazine and newspaper, to really improve their public profile.

[klunk]

It seems to me that they need to do a lot of advertising to improve public awareness of GS. It will be interesting to see how much they do and where it is. I'm thinking mainstream evening tv advertising, as well as magazine and newspaper, to really improve their public profile.

I think all of the above would be required to raise the buying public's awareness as currently outside of the WIS population brand awareness is virtually zero.
If they really want to raise their profile, they may have the ambition to muscle in Rolex's strategy of sport event sponsorship. I'm watching highlights of the Japanese Gp at the moment and you can see Rolex advertising virtually everywhere.

[autumnwind]

Seiko is like the ultimate watch connoisseurs play ground . New tech , old tech, old tech with new tech, nearly every conceivable model and design for every situation, with lovely entry level models up to the GS prices. If you can make it there, Japan is just an awesome place for any watch fan, and particularly for Seikos!


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[forpetesake]

[QUOTE=Neil.C;4520214]I think that they should have gone with a different name personally a la Lexus or whatever.
QUOTE]

Lexus: Luxury Exports to the United States.

How imaginative. Grand Toyota would have worked for me.

Maybe Seiko would welcome some TZ-UK inspiration (yeah right).

'Seikosha' - authentic, looks good, sounds good and oozes heritage..

[markrlondon]

'Seikosha' - authentic, looks good, sounds good and oozes heritage..

Hmm.... could be a box shifter's own-brand pseudo-Japanese Chinese-made white goods brand. ;-)

[paskinner]

Seiko has one of the greatest histories in watchmaking. It doesn't need to 'hide'. Grand Seiko has only been sold in the west for ten years or so. It's only now that they are stepping up their marketing.
Come back in another ten years......

[forpetesake]

Hmm.... could be a box shifter's own-brand pseudo-Japanese Chinese-made white goods brand. ;-)

It would still be better than a box shifter's own-brand pseudo-Swiss Chinese-made luxury goods brand.

[Neil.C]

Seiko has one of the greatest histories in watchmaking. It doesn't need to 'hide'. Grand Seiko has only been sold in the west for ten years or so. It's only now that they are stepping up their marketing.
Come back in another ten years......

You surprise me.

So none of GS's offering in the '60's-'70's were sold over here? I've owned quite a few of them so didn't expect that at all.

Of course GS stopped making mechanical watches in the very early '70's thinking nobody would want anything but quartz and it wasn't until they saw the huge renaissance of the Swiss mechanical watch that they started again on mech watches in the mid '90's. They missed the boat as it were and are playing catch up now.

I can't help but think that they must rue the "lost" twenty odd years.

[Middo]

I think that they should have gone with a different name personally a la Lexus or whatever.

However with a multi national conglomerate like Seiko they can afford a luxury brand without really worrying about sales too much as opposed to some much smaller companies.

Why do I have Alan Partridge in my head saying “Japanese Rolex”

[slever]

Very, very tempted by one of the mechanical Grand Seiko models - either their Snow Flake Spring Drive or GMTs. Available in the UK now at a few dealers and will make a point of having a look to see one in the flesh.

[Gyp]

I suspect the problem that Seiko might have breaking in to the Western market in a big way is size.

I've got a SBGJ001G which is a thing of absolute beauty but feels only just big enough at 40mm and a SBGX009 which, at 37mm is just too small. The SBGJ001G gets worn fairly regularly, but while the SBGX009 is gorgeous and often goes on my wrist, I've usually changed my mind, popped it back in the box and chosen something else before I leave the house.

For me the SBGD201 would be absolutely perfect at 43mm, but it's a bit spendy.

[AKM]

Here's what the SBGJ001 looks like on a typical owner's wrist:
https://youtu.be/7efNZA_I--k

I was attracted to the brand when the Swiss went supersize.


Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[klunk]

Here's what the SBGJ001 looks like on a typical owner's wrist:
https://youtu.be/7efNZA_I--k

I was attracted to the brand when the Swiss went supersize.


Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

I watched that video recently and was a little dismayed at the overall thickness of the case.
It looks very thick in the video and I'm not sure that I could get on with all of that bulk, so I've decided to track one down and take a look at one in the flesh before I go any further.

[AKM]

I watched that video recently and was a little dismayed at the overall thickness of the case.
It looks very thick in the video and I'm not sure that I could get on with all of that bulk, so I've decided to track one down and take a look at one in the flesh before I go any further.

The fit of these watches is very much down to personal taste and body shape.

The automatic and Spring Drive Grand Seikos have substantial case thickness and weight. Whilst much of this thickness is hidden by the bezel, lugs and case back it's not a feature you'd expect from a dressier watch. The rationale appears to be that the movement thickness allows for greater durability and reliability but this in turn affects the case proportions.

The SBGJ001, like many of the high beats, features a case inspired by the 44GS which had substantial angular faceted lugs albeit with a much smaller case diameter. These lugs have the effect of making the watch look bigger on the wrist.

Always try before you buy, there's other case styles available including a variety of different lugs, bezel thicknesses and crystal profiles. Some work well on smaller wrists and hide the thickness a little better but none are truly slim.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[klunk]

I dropped into Peplows in Worcester today to take a look at a titanium Hi Beat GMT they had in stock to check out the case thickness. It sure is a substantial lump of metal, but very impressed with the overall design and finish.
Still a little undecided though, but would love to try one, but definitely not a list price.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Gyp]

I dropped into Peplows in Worcester today to take a look at a titanium Hi Beat GMT they had in stock to check out the case thickness. It sure is a substantial lump of metal, but very impressed with the overall design and finish.
Still a little undecided though, but would love to try one, but definitely not a list price.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

How much is it?

[klunk]

How much is it?

The titanium is £6750


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gyp]

The titanium is £6750


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

About £750 over the steel then.

[klunk]

About £750 over the steel then.

Yes that's right


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[744ER]

Rolex have never given a specific period for servicing, no doubt because conditions vary. The thing about ten year servicing is a myth, Rolex never said that, despite what some ADs like to claim.
I would have thought between five and seven years is probably sensible. GS watches are very durable in my experience. I would see them as watches to have confidence in. Buy them if you like them, servicing and long levity are unlikely to trouble you; resale values might.

Let us know who you decide to donate to! :)

[PJ S]

^
Well, would you look at that! Internal comms only too… but yet verbalised to a member of the public when simply inquired about.
£50, I believe, was the wager proffered.

[forpetesake]

One has to give credit where credit is due.

[paskinner]

The bottom of this document reads 'for internal use only.' In other words, it is not intended as a public communication of any sort.
Show me a public statement from Rolex, not weird internal stuff with the source missing.

[Der Amf]

Rolex have never given a specific period for servicing, no doubt because conditions vary. The thing about ten year servicing is a myth, Rolex never said that, despite what some ADs like to claim.

I repeat my challenge my ou won't find a recommendation for ten years in any public document from Rolex. Produce one and I'l happily pay.

What an outrageously slippery representation of what you said! Where's this "public" bit suddenly appeared from?

You wrote "Rolex never said that" and a document is produced showing they did. You called it a "myth" and here it is, plain as a wardrobe - and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it! Very disappointing.

[paskinner]

You know full well that I was referring to what Rolex have told the public in their advice about servicing. A document marked 'for internal use only' is not a recommendation about anything, because Rolex owners aren't intended to read it.
Rolex do not recommend ten year service intervals. Or any other length of time. They never have. Go on their site and have a look. They continue to avoid making any mention at all of servicing intervals. No amount of bluster will change the truth of that.

[744ER]

Its information for sales people, to use when interacting with customers... Really showing your true colours here. Sad, really.

You know full well that I was referring to what Rolex have told the public in their advice about servicing. A document marked 'for internal use only' is not a recommendation about anything, because Rolex owners aren't intended to read it.
Rolex do not recommend ten year service intervals. Or any other length of time. They never have. Go on their site and have a look. They continue to avoid making any mention at all of servicing intervals. No amount of bluster will change the truth of that.

[paskinner]

This unpublished internal document actually says servicing 'when required' before going on to contradict itself. Your can't have a policy of servicing 'when required' and also 'every ten years'. One or the other, not both.
To make any sense it would have to say something like 'service when necessary, and never leave it more than ten years.' But there is no such statement on any Rolex site.
For example, if gaskets leaked when swimming, after nine years, try telling Rolex you were following their advice. Quoting anonymous internal documents won't get you anywhere.

[seadog1408]

Slippier than a slippy thing in a slippy thing competition.

[mindforge]

This is such a storm in a tea cup. If you've invested a lot of money in either Rolex or Grand Seiko, you want to be confident and somehow perversely proud that it won't require servicing very frequently. I'm sure if you leave either for 10 years in the normal course of events (usual wear and tear) and then have it serviced, it will be fine.

[forpetesake]

This is such a storm in a tea cup....

To see "approximately every 10 years" in writing somehow feels more significant than that and I don't even own a Rolex.

[paskinner]

My concern is that people aren't misinformed. You have to use your own judgement...Rolex won't tell you when to get a service. My own instinct is around every six or seven years.
If people still doubt my claim that Rolex have never given specific service intervals, pop over to the Rolex forum ...which is inevitably more focussed on such stuff. You will find the Moderator confirming my point. Then back to TZ of course.

[Neil.C]

Its information for sales people, to use when interacting with customers... Really showing your true colours here. Sad, really.

Thanks for that.

Obviously the Rolex authorised information to give to customers, it wouldn't mention "your watch" otherwise would it?

Shame about the climb down on the charity donation.

[AKM]

"whenever necessary or approximately every 10 years".

My reading of this is it that it means whichever comes first, but ideally not longer than 10 years. The "whenever necessary" could happen at any time.


Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[744ER]

Thanks for that.

Obviously the Rolex authorised information to give to customers, it wouldn't mention "your watch" otherwise would it?

Shame about the climb down on the charity donation.

Exactly, its a public recommendation by any standard. Guess he can't put his money where his mouth is?

[markrlondon]

Exactly, its a public recommendation by any standard.

Except it's not. In the footer, the document states "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY". That is emphatically and explicitly not a public recommendation!

As such, the choice of language in the text (i.e. the second person) is odd. I'd expect it to use the third person, i.e. something like "We recommend that the customer has their watch serviced whenever necessary, or approximately every 10 years. [...]".

Despite the fact that the document is apparently supposed to remain confidential, i.e. "for internal use only", I certainly accept that the implicit inference of the servicing text is that it is information to be passed on to the customer and that perhaps the writers used the second person as a textual convenience. Nevertheless, the "for internal use only" qualifier means that one cannot honestly say that this is a "public recommendation". Indeed, either you or the person who supplied you with this document is apparently breaking the "for internal use only" directive by showing it to us at all (rather than merely communicating the intent of the text to us)!




Before any smarta3ses accuse me of nitpicking, let me point out that I am merely observing the information available on the page and avoiding singling out one bit of it to the exclusion of the rest. It all counts, and a document tagged with "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY" really cannot be honestly, genuinely or meaningfully described as "a public recommendation by any standard", even if the information within it is presumably intended to be disseminated publicly by the recipients of the document, but without sharing the document itself.

[Der Amf]

You're making some sweeping assumptions there, and got yourself tied in up knots.

"Internal use" does not mean Top Secret For Your Eyes Only For Heavens Sake Don't Repeat This, is just means this is a training document for the benefit of those in customer-facing roles, and the use of the second person is because the training document is giving the trainee a script, a line for them to use when talking to a customer.

Document: not for customer
Message: for customer

[markrlondon]

You're making some sweeping assumptions there, and got yourself tied in up knots.

No knots and no assumptions other than the very same ones you have come to. You appear not to have properly read the message I wrote (or even read it at all).

"Internal use" does not mean Top Secret For Your Eyes Only For Heavens Sake Don't Repeat This

I agree. That's what I said, isn't it. I said nothing to the effect that you are claiming. Read again what I wrote.

is just means this is a training document for the benefit of those in customer-facing roles

So it would seem, just as I said (in different terms) in my previous message.

Here is where I said it:

Despite the fact that the document is apparently supposed to remain confidential, i.e. "for internal use only", I certainly accept that the implicit inference of the servicing text is that it is information to be passed on to the customer and that perhaps the writers used the second person as a textual convenience.

and the use of the second person is because the training document is giving the trainee a script, a line for them to use when talking to a customer.

Quite possibly. That is one possible assumption. It is the one I came to in my earlier message, if you had actually read it.

Document: not for customer
Message: for customer

So it would seem. JUST AS I SAID.

Again, DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE?

However, the key point remains as I said in my summary paragraph which I will quote here:

Before any smarta3ses accuse me of nitpicking [or fail to actually read the message they are purporting to reply to], let me point out that I am merely observing the information available on the page and avoiding singling out one bit of it to the exclusion of the rest. It all counts, and a document tagged with "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY" really cannot be honestly, genuinely or meaningfully described as "a public recommendation by any standard", even if the information within it is presumably intended to be disseminated publicly by the recipients of the document, but without sharing the document itself.

P.S. Aaaand breath. Smile. It's ok. And we're speaking somewhat at cross purposes. We agree on the presumed intent of the document but my point was that, even the presumed intent is correct, it is still wholly and totally incorrect to refer to a "for internal use only" document as a "a public recommendation by any standard". By all means, the information contained within it is most certainly intended to be passed to customers but that does not make what we have in front of us "a public recommendation by any standard". It is a recommendation for internal users, which may be passed on to customers as appropriate.

[744ER]

Ok bagdad bob, whatever you say...

[seadog1408]

Saddle up cowboy.


mike

[Der Amf]

If you think words given to pass on as a recommendation to the public =/= a public recommendation, then you're using a system of logic I'm not sure I've the correct mental damage for appreciating.

[paskinner]

The truth remains. There is not, and never has been, any recommendation by Rolex for a set number of years between services. No-one has ever produced such a statement on any forum. Indeed, the moderators on the Rolex Forum confirmed this just yesterday.
Some internal document, not meant to be seen by customers, isn't remotely sufficient, because customers don't even know it exists. What's more, it contradicts itself in the same sentence....the Rolex written position is that servicing should be done when needed.
Mind you, all this does point to Rolex being a bit naughty. They seem to be encouraging sales staff to say something which can then be denied as not company policy. If a watch fails within ten years, Rolex are entirely free to say the fault was lack of servicing.

[paskinner]

If you think words given to pass on as a recommendation to the public =/= a public recommendation, then you're using a system of logic I'm not sure I've the correct mental damage for appreciating.

I believe you are a member of the Rolex Forum. Read what the moderator wrote yesterday, then tell them you know better. Good luck with that.

[Kingstepper]

The truth remains. There is not, and never has been, any recommendation by Rolex for a set number of years between services. No-one has ever produced such a statement on any forum. Indeed, the moderators on the Rolex Forum confirmed this just yesterday.

Those mods can say as they wish on their forum but doesn't add any weight to arguments here.

[OHG1X]

I started reading this thread thinking it would relate to buying a Grand Seiko !

So............Back on topic.....

Who's bought One ?

I will definately have a look and a try as soon as I have the opportunity.
Agreed they are a real enthusiasts choice, you need to be to spend £000s on a Watch that most will think cost £50.
But obviously if that mattered to you another Brand would probably be gracing your wrist.

[Dave+63]

The truth remains. There is not, and never has been, any recommendation by Rolex for a set number of years between services. No-one has ever produced such a statement on any forum. Indeed, the moderators on the Rolex Forum confirmed this just yesterday.
Some internal document, not meant to be seen by customers, isn't remotely sufficient, because customers don't even know it exists. What's more, it contradicts itself in the same sentence....the Rolex written position is that servicing should be done when needed OR EVERY TEN YEARS.
Mind you, all this does point to Rolex being a bit naughty. They seem to be encouraging sales staff to say something which can then be denied as not company policy. If a watch fails within ten years, Rolex are entirely free to say the fault was lack of servicing.

Clearly the document provided disproves your first statement. Yes it's an internal document but an official Rolex document nonetheless. It states that the watch should be serviced when required or every ten years. There's nothing contradictory in that statement ie every ten years unless it requires attention sooner.

Surely a man of your intelligence can clearly see that you're arguing against the facts.

[mr_esearch]

I started reading this thread thinking it would relate to buying a Grand Seiko !

So............Back on topic.....

Who's bought One ?

I will definately have a look and a try as soon as I have the opportunity.
Agreed they are a real enthusiasts choice, you need to be to spend £000s on a Watch that most will think cost £50.
But obviously if that mattered to you another Brand would probably be gracing your wrist.

I have. From someone on forums. GMT high beat. Great watch. Best finishing and dial on a watch in this price bracket by some way....in my opinion.

As for servicing I will go for when I think it needs it based on my usage. No way I am servicing it in 2 years time when I don't use it very often. It is more likely going to be 5-7 years. Frankly if I have spent x thousand then I am aware the service will be z hundred.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk