Reply With QuoteI doubt very much if Rolex will lose much sleep over this.
Came across this today.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...wealthy-wrists
I doubt very much if Rolex will lose much sleep over this.
If Grand Seiko increase their sales network, which will make them seen by more people I'm sure it will lead to more sales. This has to hit other watch brands as it will take sales away from them. With the amount of watches Rolex sells I'm sure it won't have much effect on them.Originally Posted by demonloop
This will likely cause the same old argument, but in my opinion, VERY few people would consider a Grand Seiko over a Rolex.
I would, and I have
I didn't and wouldn't
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The number of people like yourself are few and far between.
As mentioned above, Rolex won’t concern themselves with the (likely) less than 1000 people who’ll decide not purchase a hard-to-get SS sports model, and buy one of the (approximately) 15K GS pieces made in the past year.
1K “loss” out of Rolex’s (typically) 800K pieces annual production is barely a yawn, let alone a sleepless night.
Just because both brands share a similar retail price doesn’t mean they are directly compared or vying for the same buyer – Omega is the brand most likely to give Rolex any sort of concern.
The Western motor industry was just as complacent about Lexus, which is now one of the worlds most successful makers of luxury cars.
I doubt that Grand Seiko even want to rival Rolex in sales..... but they surely do want to catch and then overtake Rolex in prestige. Give it another ten years and we'l see. It's unlikely but certainly not impossible.
The article says. "The company makes fewer than 100,000 Grand Seikos a year" I'll have to see if I can find a more exact number.
As you say, time will tell.
I agree its unlikely, but a major difference is that everybody wants a Rolex and almost nobody has heard of Grand Seiko outside the WIS
While I agree "that almost nobody has heard of Grand Seiko", but "that everyone wants a Rolex", is a bit of an overstatement, I don't, and I have friends and family that don't either.
I'd love a Patek Philippe, but sadly out of my price range
Last edited by PhilipJI; 15th March 2018 at 17:23.
I didn't and wouldn't
True, but they had never heard of Lexus either. Things can change.
Think this is probably the issue, they should use a completely different name like Toyota did with Lexus
while it has 'Seiko' in it think will struggle with the wider public
Problem with Grand Seiko is just that, they still have the word Seiko on there. Lexus worked perhaps because there wasn't that obvious connection. I hope I'm wrong as I'm a big fan of what Grand Seiko makes, but perhaps just pushing the Credor brand would've been a smarter choice.
I posted this on a youtube video a few weeks ago.
With mention of Lexus in the video, I think Seiko should have done the same. Toyota decided they wanted to make more upmarket cars. They new they would have a problem selling cars at a lot higher price point with the Toyota name. So they introduced a new name, Lexus. Seiko should have done the same for the GS. You and I know its a lot better watch than your normal Seiko, but to keep explaining that to others must become a bit of a bore. I have an Omega, part of the Swatch group, somehow it just wouldn't be the same if it was called the Grand Swatch.
Loving my new (used) GS
The history of Seiko is actually very interesting. It was the quartz movement that perhaps brought them the 'cheap' brand status. Shane really but Grand Seiko actually well predates this 'crisis' and quartz was partly a result of internal competition and the desire to reach ultimate accuracy. This I applaud.
I've had a few Seiko quartz watches over the years and always been happy with them, the last I gave to a friend. I still have a Seiko 5 mechanical watch.
It’s all just western markets’ obsession with branding. Lexus branding is only used in western markets. In Japan Toyota is already a prestige marque so Lexus didn’t exist until 2005. For example the original IS over there is an Altezza. Also we got 6 cylinder engines, the janapese had 4 pots.
The same branding idea is used by Infiniti = Nissan, Acura = Honda
Anyway back to watches. For the most part for most customers a GS will never be a Rolex (even if the watch itself surpasses an equivalent model)
Last edited by nunya; 16th March 2018 at 07:18.
I think you’ve missed an important point. Rolex’s prestige is partly built on achievements. There is only one Everest to be to the top of first, only one channel to swim across first, only one moon to get to first (in the case of Omega) and GS simply cannot overcome these facts. If Rolex becomes anything other then top dog in global high end watch Sales in my lifetime I’ll eat my hat.
But I specifically said that GS wouldn't equal Rolex sales. That won't be their aim.
What Grand Seiko are after is enhanced status. Their profits will always be a tiny fraction of Seiko sales overall. But the reflected glory for Seiko as a company will be valuable. And I assume that is why 'Seiko ' always appears on the watch.
Incidentally, the Ford GT40 shows you can create massive desirability with a very ordinary company name.
Last edited by paskinner; 15th March 2018 at 21:25.
While you and I appreciate historical achievements, many of today's buyers are more interested in what's fashionable or what some minor celebrity is wearing.
Who knows, maybe a GS will be the first to Mars.
Yes, the Mars watch will be the next massive landmark coup for some brand.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
Wasn’t a Smiths first to the top of Everest?
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I'm sure I read once they had both, a Smiths and a Rolex.
While the Grand Seiko is an outstanding timepiece, snob appeal and brand recognition will keep Rolex on top.
Examples: The Nikon SP rangefinder was an incredible 35mm camera but given the choice, most folks still gravitated towards the Leica M3. The same can be said of MB preference over Lexus.
It's all about condescension rights and privileges.
Depends who you ask. Ask Rolex, and it was their Explorer.
& Even before they made an Explorer ;)
It's just a matter of time...
The issue is that when Joe Public (i.e. not a watch nerd) wants to spend thousands on a watch, they'll buy a Rolex solely because it says Rolex on the dial, whereas they'll likely need to be persuaded to buy Grand Seiko in spite of what is on the dial.
It's a lack of education or concern as to what actually constitutes quality in a watch (or any consumer product, really), and over-emphasis on branding. (Not a slight on Rolex - which markets heavily but from a foundation of a long history of building fine watches).
I think Rolex is the wrong example to reference anyway, as they aren't the realistic competitor for GS. The journalist just used Rolex because it's an accessible, recognised name to the casual reader, and provides an entry point reference to an article about a brand most are otherwise unaware of.
But, the watch industry is full of surprising sea changes. Were the Swiss always 'top dogs'? No. But fundamental change often takes decades.
For my own part, I own both Rolex & Grand Seiko, and greatly appreciate both for what they are (and each has superiority over the other in many areas). Whilst they share certain commendable ethos in common, their aesthetics & sales approaches are purposely largely different, so I don't see them as realistic head-to-head competitors at present.
I just can't see GS being any kind of threat to any of the established Swiss players. They have their place, but when they keep making some crazy monstrosities within the GS stable they will only be a bit player for me - Having owned quite a few over the years, I doubt I will ever buy another.
No one ever says "Rolex, aren't they just an expensive version of a Tudor" lol
At least Swatch are a little better with their overall branding, in some but not all ways, i.e. than both Seiko and Rolex - no one calls Omega a poor man's Blancpain for example...
Last edited by Omegamanic; 16th March 2018 at 04:55.
It's just a matter of time...
The brand was launched in Japan back in 2005
https://lexus.jp/
Not only do Rolex, Omega, etc. have the "name," but they each have their distinctive model looks: Submariner; Explorer, Speedmaster, etc.
The auto industry is not like that. Even though you have a Mercedes CLS or BMW 750, the styling changes every couple years, so you're not always sure what you're looking at - - unlike watches, which change looks on a schedule like glaciers (used to).
I did
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the correction. I’ve amended my post.
I was thinking along the time line, when Lexus first came to the west (UK) in the 1990s, then brand didn’t exist in Japan.
It is possible that once proven a good (not massive) seller, Toyota rebranded their higher end cars the same for the domestic market?
In Rolex speak "what became the modern Explorer"
If Rolex could prove they were top of Everest first they would shout it from the rooftops. They don't, speaks volumes.
I don't think they have any-thing to fear from GS, at least not while all the wide boys and city folk are still buying their Rolex to advertise their success, GS does not yet do that so they can not casually roll up their sleeve in public to declare they have made it.
The headline is sensationalist, but this quote from James Dowling nails it. The brands who should be threatened are those which don't have high-street name recognition:
“The Grand Seiko is a serious competitor” to brands like Richemont’s Jaeger-LeCoultre and IWC, said James Dowling, co-author of ‘The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches.’” “It’s starting to eat at their client base.”
If for Japan, why English website?
Last edited by Kingstepper; 16th March 2018 at 10:03.
How so?
Just curious as wouldn't know how you can tell
Doh, auto Google translate!
Ha, I noticed that when I went to look at their T&Cs in Japanese for a second then auto flick into english, I thought I was having a stroke for a moment!
All it will take is some good advertising on the likes of professional sports people’s shirts etc etc and they will be away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree, Rolex's marketing budget must be huge with their involvement in sport and their brand ambassadors. I'm not sure if I've ever seen an advertisement here in the UK for GS.
There seems to be a lot of car related posts on this thread which I don't mind. To me if a Rolex was a car it would be a BMW 3 or 5 series depending on the model.
But never a Ferrari or Rolls Royce.
I'm now ready to be shot down in flames.
The Japanese or rather Seiko still has a long way to go. We do have our own Dufour called Hajime Asaoka but compared to switzerland is just 1 man. The grand seiko movements while robust is still too thick even the manual wind versions and they really need to improve in this area as in the mid luxury arena is just not at the same level as rolex at all. Take the movement in the Daytona, one of the best chronograph calibers that can also be mass produced, Seiko has no answer. Yes they have chronograph movements but not at that level or size. Case finishing and hand finishing is superior to rolex just simply because there is more manual intervention but mechanically people misunderstand that Seiko is ahead at times. They are not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The manager of the GS store in Knightsbridge suggested that a bigger advertising push was coming. There should also be some interesting pieces at Baselworld. The internet rumours suggest the 9F will gain a GMT complication, including versions much like the Explorer II, and GS's previous automatic take on that. I guess there's a gap in the market for a sensibly sized version of that watch now the Rolex has gone plus sized. Though I don't know how many would choose a similar looking GS quartz over a 16570 in good used condition, appealing as the GS might be. I'd guess that the prices would be similar.
I'm a fan of the brand personally, have owned three and still have two, one vintage and one a modern 9F. But in spite of its 60s history, I still see the brand as a work in progress that only recently re-launched after a long gap. On the plus side, their history tells a fascinating story, with some great vintage models. The re-issues are excellent too, and somehow seem more wearable and authentic, and less of a retro pastiche than some of Omegas. Perhaps the lack of faux aged lume helps there, as does the timeless, clean design of 60s watches. Their design language leads to some unique pieces that are like breath of fresh air, and the finishing is certainly up there.
On the other hand, they have only just completed their rebranding, and are some years behind Omega in making a global push up the ladder. Simply pricing the pieces in the intended bracket may or may not be enough. The really big marketing drive has yet to materialise, though is gradually ramping up, and at least they finally have a boutique. Even so, it will take a lot of expensive 're-education' for the average buyer to accept the idea of a luxury Seiko, even if the logo looks different now. The effort may help their less exclusive watches too, and so be worthwhile.
But even as a fan, I think that to really succeed, there are several things they need to do. Firstly, all their automatics need to be thinner, around 2-3mm thinner. Omega have just managed this with their Aqua Terra, and it makes a huge difference. Perhaps that just means some redesigning, or it might mean a new movement. Perhaps they could find some selling points for those automatic movements in the process. They seem fine, but you would hope to feel more excited about what is, in fact, an in-house movement. Secondly, their divers and chronos are marmite at best, and are a big missed opportunity. Surely they could add some less cumbersome divers and complications? With modern Submariners looking a touch portly, and Zenith needing Hodinkee's help to get their chronos right, there are opportunities there. Thirdly, I've never been convinced by their champagne dial. They used to make lovely ones in the 60s, but there's just something off with the colour now, to my eye. And finally, the 9F's are great, but are quite long in the tooth. Longines now has the VHP movement, which is more accurate and has more functions. One day it might occur to the Swiss to put something like that in a nice case. Before that happens, surely GS should create the grail of quartz watches.
In my book that would mean 38mm for the basic 9F, slightly up from the current 37mm, and something similar to the beautiful (if thick) 40mm hi-beat with its pearly white dial. They should be accurate to 5spy or less, and have a perpetual calendar, ideally one that understands the clocks changing twice a year. Add to this an independent hour hand for traveling, and perhaps world timer versions, a bit like Nomos's subtle Tangomat GMT, and preferably without any additional bulk. The functions would also allow them to write something on the 6 side of the dial, restoring the balance. It sounds like they may be introducing GMTs and a 'time zone' hour hand, but after decades of the 9F, I'd like to see them go further and nail the perfect 10F quartz.
I think whats perfect for one isn't perfect for another, and we all would want something slightly different. I for instance have slim wrists so the 37mm size is Ok for me. I do agree with so much that you say though.
One criticism that I do have about my GS, is that there is no micro adjustment on the bracelet. It does wear a little lose, if I had a half link taken out I think it would be just fine most of the time, but my slim wrists do expand a little when I get warm and a can't abide a tight bracelet on my wrist.
If Rolex can produce something as err 'challenging' as the Skydweller, i don't think GS have an insurmountable task. But it will take at least another decade to get into full-swing. They are in it for the long haul. You can see they are moving forward from the heightened interest on TZ.
I also have slim wrists, around 6.5", and the 37mm wears fine for me too. But the 38mm Omega AT seems to be the perfect size for a contemporary watch on a slim wrist. I feel the 37mm could manage another mm if you were designing it from scratch, but it's far from a deal breaker.
On the bracelets, it's worth pointing out that they are not half links, they are 2/3rd links. This means that you can adjust the bracelet in 1/3 increments, by eg removing a link and adding two 'half' links = 1/3 up, remove a link and add a 'half' link is 1/3 down etc.. It takes time and a lot of experimentation, and it's worth buying the right tools and learning how to do it yourself, but it is possible to get the best possible fit for all year round use and it's well worth it. I am starting to think though, that easy micro adjustment is an essential ingredient of the perfect watch. Or at very least a butterfly clasp, they seem to cope better with expanding wrists in summer due to being more balanced and the clasp remaining centred.
Posting Permissions