Reply With QuoteHonestly - value is a watch I enjoy wearing, makes me feel good and doesn't depreciate.
What do you class as good value in a watch?
From a logical perspective, my 10 quid casio is good value as its accurate, durable, reliable & easy to use.
But subjectively i can find value in watches much more expensive that are much more delicate, with less features.
Im currently trying to justify a sinn 356 Sa to myself, and i keep going around in an iterative thought process.
- sinn 356 sa is pretty.
- more expensive than any watch i have currently.
- brand unknown to most.
- 500 quid more would get an omega ( that i dont like as much but will be more recognizable)
- but sinn 356 sa is pretty....
I realize
its a waste of compute cycles to try and logically justify any automatic watch so im trying to see what other people consider value when spending thousands on a watch, perhaps one from an unknown brand (ming springs to mind) where it has good quality but perhaps only a cult following.
Honestly - value is a watch I enjoy wearing, makes me feel good and doesn't depreciate.
To me it is what I like. £500 more for the Omega over the Sinn.
But you prefer the Sinn,so if I were you I would buy the Sinn.
My watches range from a price point of £170 to £5750.
I like them all,so in my mind that is great value for money.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Value to me, allows me to own more watches than I need and have a bigger collection and choice
It's clear from your post that you should get the Sinn, not the Omega.
As to your question, I like value retention in any watch I buy - I rarely sell, but I will at some point.
For me value is in the quality, workmanship and how much use/wear/enjoyment I would get out of it.
I've had equal enjoyment out of watches for £100 or £3000.
With the caveat that all is relative in the world of premium watches, I believe that in a largely subjective area, Tudor offer objectively good value, especially in the Black Bay and (even more so) Pelagos ranges.
Excellent build, in house movements, and - while not in the same league as big brother - good pedigree and historical lineage, at a snip compared to Rolex, Omega, Breitling etc.
I don’t think anyone, Rolex included, makes a superior dive watch to the Pelagos (and I’m neither owner nor prospective owner) and it’s 60% of the price of a planet ocean, cheaper than a super ocean heritage, and probably not far off the cost of a Rolex bracelet at gray market prices !
Pound for pound I think they’re playing a different game in terms of value.
Buy a used Sinn at a good price so you can flip it if you don't get on with it. Even if it's not the one you really want, it can be useful to live with a watch for a bit and see what makes it stand out, or not. This will give you a feel for the brand in general.
I have a Sinn 103 and it's superb. What you get is really good build quality, very clean, functional design in an honest, but not "cheap" tool watch. You don't necessarily get as good a movement as you might get in an Omega, but I'm not sure what they're putting in their watches at that price point.
My point though is that these things are mostly somewhat intangible. What happened since I bought a few better watches, like my Sinn, after having previously collected a few mid-tier watches, is that I now notice more of the shortcomings in those watches which I wasn't even aware of at the time I got them. It's mostly small issues of finishing to the case, dial, hands, bezel, etc. These tend to add up to make the overall experience a bit "nicer" but it's hard to really pin down on paper as a list of features that make the difference.
All in all, I'd say it's unlikely that, if you like the Sinn, you'll be disappointed with it compared to whatever Omega you might have been able to get for a bit more, unless you really, really want that Omega. I've got a vintage SpeedSonic that is among my favourite watches, along with the Sinn, but it's not inherently better than the Sinn just because it says Omega on the dial.
One difference I do notice, which may be related to brand perceptions, is that despite my Sinn being my most expensive watch, I treat it as an everyday watch and don't worry about it too much. Whereas I wear the Omega less often and am a lot more cautious about anything that could possibly damage it. I think this is more to do with it being so old and hence having an air of irreplaceability about it, whether or not that's actually true. However, I suspect if you were to stretch your budget to get an Omega, you might start worrying more about damaging it, or it getting stolen.
I don't try to justify the monetary value of watches because ultimately anything about a £20 Casio terrorist watch is a bit superfluous as you say... Look at them as something you appreciate and enjoy, a hobby, or investment. People who don't get it will think you're mad whether it's a £2000 Omega or a £1500 Sinn. I've personally got a Sinn, a Hanhart and a Stowa, brands most people have never heard of - they're what I like and am interested in, so that's how I've justified it.
I look for intrinsic value in the watches I buy rather than extrinsic. So I tend toward watches with attention to detail, maybe innovative movements, complexity or then again sublime simplicity. I am not so much concerned with how much they cost. I find I am buying what I may call 'iconic' watches - but I shy from vintage as I like to be able to wear my watches day-to-day.
So what is 'good value' for me: an iconic, innovative, complex (timeless?) watch, as it would encompass all I value in a watch.
For me it is one from my collection:
Martyn
Good question OP!!
Value in a watch??? I look at watches as wrist jewelry that tell time no value given my smart phone provides time. If you want to buy a watch buy it because you like it and it's purpose not because it may have future value. I could not bear to wear something I hated just because it may be worth more tomorrow.
Recognizable?? Who cares it's only meant to please you and put a smile on your face.
Good value is very subjective and market driven at what the market can take and also scale able with watch brand pricing. This doesn't necessarily mean good value. To me it means a watch I enjoy wearing and even after weeks on my wrist I can look down and marvel at the dial and overall quality. This can apply to any watch. The main thing is that you like it and appreciate all the things that made you love it in the first place. Try not to be influenced by too much forum opinion on trivial details like font, or date windows. Just enjoy it for what it is and love it.
The problem is there will always be another watch for £xxx more.
For me it's simple do I like it? And will I wear it regularly?
If the answer to both is yes then it represents good value to me.
My heart yearns for a Ti Panerai, but I wouldn't wear it on a regular basis and so to me doesn't represent good value and hence isn't under current consideration.
Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Value is a hard term an often mixed with value for money. It sounds very rational however it is extremely subjective.
Many would agree that Seiko Sarb range offers (or offered) great value for money. I went for a sarx at double the costs. Unjustified for many however this watch works for me and makes me smile. There is no metric to measure how much I like it over a sarb.
I guess in the end always go with what you like first. Budget may be an issue but should not be a starting point.
Quotes like “for x more I can get watch y which is generally seen as more desirable but not by me” don’t work for me. That’s a dealer attitude if you are in it to make money or minimise risk losing money. It is thinking’s about selling the watch you don’t even own yet, not about owning it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good value to me is simply that I derive a lot of enjoyment and pleasure from ownership and wearing the pieces I do end up purchasing.
As long as I can afford them price is less of an issue however I do have a few rules like never paying over list for a current model, always get full set in the price, mint condition, intend to keep, it, don’t pay silly money and so forth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A £400 seiko that will last 10 years plus, is my idea of value
Most brands offer poor (financial) value with depreciation and service costs thrown into the equation.
Value, and therefore Good Value, have a plethora of meanings in the watch world.
And it is true that monetary value is an aspect, but it is not the only one by a long shot.
In theory, the better design, higher specification or more features that you get for your money should be the decider of value. In simple Bang-for-buck terms.
But it often isn't, because we load our watches with intangible baggage. And they are loaded for us.
We add the brand, what we perceive as the value of the brand, and how that makes us feel about the watch. We add the circumstances of purchase and wear, the rarity of the model, collectability, and even prior use by celebrities, explorers or the military. All these things are not visible in the watch itself, but form part of its value, in monetary terms, but also in emotional terms.
The best embodiment of value that I have is my Tutima Commando. For a start it uses my favourite movement, the Lemania 5100, in my favourite form, with the 24-hr scale and running seconds deleted, and with the addition of a bezel. All in a 200m WR Titanium case. It is rare as it was a model that was never catalogued (although you could order one direct from the factory, for a premium). It is also an issued piece, having been designed and made for the ZUZ troops of the German customs authority.
I also value it it because it took a long time to find one and I got it direct from a German government disposal auction, several years ago, bidding via my first smartphone on wifi in an Italian villa whilst on holiday with my extended family. And I got 2 of them, because fellow Lemania collector Andy wanted one but was unable to bid.
I have worn it loads and really love doing so.
And lastly because I think we both got them at a lower monetary cost than I perceive it to be worth. But as it is not for sale, that is irrelevant.
So this one watch demonstrates all the things that I perceive give value to a watch.
Dave
That reminds me, I shall get it out of the safe and put it on.
Good value is relative,
Wear a 10k watch everyday for 10 years, and it’ll cost less than a daily starbucks.
I agree with many that good value is not simply about money. I don't tend to worry too much about limiting myself within reason. Some have stated they wouldn't pay over the current model list price, but with older out of production models desirability creeps in and that can push the market price up.
Interestingly, Seiko SARB was mentioned before and in pure financial terms some of those watches have increased in value 4 or 5 times the original list price of 10 to 15 years ago and are extremely difficult to find for sale. So what is good value in this scenario, finding a good condition example at a decent price is what every collector wants, but finding the right watch is more important to me even if it means paying a little extra.
I would link good value to satisfaction. If you conclude a deal and have secured the watch that you really want, then happy days.
A piece of Jewellery, something that sticks on your wrist through the life
Value the fine workmanship, precious materials, the details and above all some watches are a store of value
Hard to justify the prices paid - End of the day its a hobby/passion/ something you enjoy
For me watches are a luxury I really shouldn’t own, in so much as logically I should be over paying on the mortgage or buying my car outright etc.
So a good value watch for me is something that won’t depreciate, and ideally rise in value during my ownership. I don’t mind losing money on cycling and photography but I don’t view owning a watch a hobby.
All my watches are good value if money’s the gauge we are using.
Sinn 103,Tudor Ranger,Smiths military,Smiths AM etc.
But the best value for me is my IWC pilot even though it cost over £4,000,to my mind that’s a ridiculous amount to spend on a watch and totally unjustified.
I bought it by chance while sheltering from the rain In Munich,I bought it for life with no consideration of re sale value.
I love the watch as a design and it’s simple function.
It makes me happy to wear it and brings back good memory’s of the time.
Very good value for money
That puts into perspective how much we spend on coffee. Who needs to waste money on cigarettes when we have coffee!Originally Posted by endo
For me good value is buying something that I can use for its intended purpose and enjoy. It is good value if the money spent delivers my expectations.
I have a Seiko 007 and a Sub Date. The Seiko is good value at its price point but think the Sub is good value due to value retention. However I do not think end value should be a consideration (but when justifying buying expensive watches it is).
A McDonald's coffee vs Nero coffee - which is better value? Once consumed, there is no value to retain. The value to me is the product quality/environment at its price point and its enjoyment.
This question of good value is impossible to answer.
The thing that as brought me the greatest happiness is my wife and she as cost me a fortune but she is, and always has been, the best thing in my life.
I didn't know she was a member of the forum:
As I don’t have unlimited funds value should play an important part when I buy a watch but I’ve only bought one watch because it was a good value proposition (A smiths Everest as it had the style and quality I wanted at a ridiculously low price)
Most of my purchases are ‘from the heart’ my most recent being an Eterna Tangaroa which i not only like but reminds me of my grandfather (he was an avid sailor) it was also a great deal from drop so I suppose value came into it but wasn’t the main driving force.
I’m now casting about for another watch which will be a substantial (for me, for some on here it’s probably a weeknights wine bill) investment. There are 4 main contenders, none have particularly stellar resale values and 2 in particular are real taste polarisers. I’m waiting for the final funds to hit my account and then I’m not going to have anywhere to hide and will have to make a decision before they are diverted into the wife’s spa, Prosecco and gin fund.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting question and while several members have tried to express their views on what constitutes value, I loved Mick P’s corny but cute answer.
For me to consider a watch good value for money, it has to tick a lot of boxes and be built perfectly for the least amount of money.
So if I could have ceramic case, innovative movement, display back, etc etc. for less than £1k, that would be superb value for money. I've ticked all those boxes with a Speedmaster DSOTM, but for considerably more money. As a result, the 'value for money' aspect diminishes.
I don't think luxury goods can generally be classed as 'value for money'. There's always an alternative that does the same job for a fraction of the cost.
That’s pretty cute.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
