# watch hierarchy



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Is there some watch hierarchy someone can refer me to with regard to quality, price and style (kind of like the dress shoe hierarchy)? I'd like to upgrade to a nicer watch to wear with suits but have no idea which brands are good and which ones are great. 

Right now I have a crappy Seiko watch that I rarely wear. It looks nice but I got it for $75 on Amazon years ago. The battery has since died but it always kept poor time when it was working.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

I am no watch aficionado, older Hamilton's are my speed. Some men here have paid, or claim to have paid, 5 figures for a watch. After reading enough watch threads, I have concluded that if you want helpful, rather than theoretical responses, would be best to give a price range.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

You could choose this Bulova ($88)



or this IWC Portofino ($4150)



Or anything priced in between but that looks similar. These would accessorise wonderfully with a suit. 


This on the other hand, I wouldn't accept as a gift.





Every man is free to indulge his passions. Even still, conspicuous consumption is troubling. I would not spend (or claim to spend - as arkirshner rightly notes) a five figure sum on a watch.


----------



## pusso (May 5, 2009)

Watches that have Swiss movements rather than Japanese are considered superior.... I hope this helps you.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Watch U Seek is the correct forum to pose this question to.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

1. Black leather strap - white analogue face - gold or silver case is generally considered the most formal
2. As above but with brown leather strap 

Then it's: 

3. black faces 
4. metal straps
5. digital watches 

6. everything else from plastic straps to red faces.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Black leather strap - white analogue face - gold or silver case is generally considered the most formal


Got one. White face, silver case, and black strap.
Timex.
Cost me about £20 and it glows in the dark when you press the winder in.
Takes a lickin'...


----------



## Randy Y (Apr 19, 2012)

I love my Patek... but I'm not thinking those are the types of suggestions you are looking for


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

pusso said:


> Watches that have Swiss movements rather than Japanese are considered superior.... I hope this helps you.


That's neither true nor helpful. It all depends on the movements. Both Swiss and Japanese movements come in ranges from entry level to eye-poppingly complex and expensive. Thus a base Swiss ETA 2824 might be better than a base Seiko 7S26, but a Seiko 6R15 is better than the 2824 (well that depends on which 2824), and Seiko's top tier movements (like the Spring drive or the high-beat stuff, or whatever Seiko puts in its $15k+ Credor line) are unequalled....anyway, all I'm trying to say is that the Swiss v. Japanese thing is nonsense.

Somewhere on this forum I started a thread on "suitable watches" that have a lot of good options for watches at all price points that would look good with a suit. The aesthetic matter more than the price tag or the brand. Seiko's Seiko 5 line, for example, costs from $60-$110, and several (but not all) Seiko 5 models look positively smashing, esp. with an aftermarket strap. There are several threads on Watch U Seek dedicated to people showing off their $60 babies...and no, a $60 Seiko is not junk.

Looking beyond that, the hierarchies are hard to establishing because it's totally irrational. Most people who are into watches think mechanical > quartz, for example. Many turn their noses at solars, which are becoming increasingly common (Seiko and Citizen). And then there are brands...you really need to think about how much you want to spend before one can make any suggestions. And yeah, head over to watchuseek.com if you want to be overwhelmed.


----------



## Owen Meany (Jul 10, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> That's neither true nor helpful. It all depends on the movements. Both Swiss and Japanese movements come in ranges from entry level to eye-poppingly complex and expensive. Thus a base Swiss ETA 2824 might be better than a base Seiko 7S26, but a Seiko 6R15 is better than the 2824 (well that depends on which 2824), and Seiko's top tier movements (like the Spring drive or the high-beat stuff, or whatever Seiko puts in its $15k+ Credor line) are unequalled....anyway, all I'm trying to say is that the Swiss v. Japanese thing is nonsense.
> 
> Somewhere on this forum I started a thread on "suitable watches" that have a lot of good options for watches at all price points that would look good with a suit. The aesthetic matter more than the price tag or the brand. Seiko's Seiko 5 line, for example, costs from $60-$110, and several (but not all) Seiko 5 models look positively smashing, esp. with an aftermarket strap. There are several threads on Watch U Seek dedicated to people showing off their $60 babies...and no, a $60 Seiko is not junk.
> 
> Looking beyond that, the hierarchies are hard to establishing because it's totally irrational. Most people who are into watches think mechanical > quartz, for example. Many turn their noses at solars, which are becoming increasingly common (Seiko and Citizen). And then there are brands...you really need to think about how much you want to spend before one can make any suggestions. And yeah, head over to watchuseek.com if you want to be overwhelmed.


+1 - I learned a lot at timezone.com and thank God that I found timezone.com before I went off and purchased a Rolex! :eek2:


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Owen Meany said:


> +1 - I learned a lot at timezone.com and thank God that I found timezone.com before I went off and purchased a Rolex! :eek2:


Plenty of people bash Rolexes, but few of them own any. The company's history and current level of technology are fascinating, and its corporate policies are admirable. I particularly like the way they work to reduce the discounting so common among higher end mechanicals. I enjoy mine but have no illusion that they keep time better than almost any quartz. The really interesting watches these days are the solar-powered models from Citizen and Seiko. Now somebody can post that only superficial showoffs own Rolexes.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

My completely incomplete list of "high-end" watch tiers. Feel free to hack away...

*Top*:
- Audemars Piguet
- Parmigiani Fleurier
- A Lange et Sohne
- Patek Philippe
- Harry Winston (specifically the Opus collection made by various AHCI makers)
- Richard Mille (maybe, I think they still buy AP movements...)
- Roger Dubois
- FP Journe
- Any number of AHCI makers

*Middle*:
- Rolex
- Breguet
- Ulysse Nardin
- Jaeger LeCoultre
- Blancpain
- Vacheron
- Hublot (maybe)
- Zenith
- Glashutte Original
- Chopard (now that they make their own movements)
- Jaquet Droz
- Girard Perregaux

*Lower but still great:
*- Panerai
- Bell & Ross
- IWC
- Bremont
- Sinn
- Stowa
- Omega
- etc.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Not on your excellent list, Consultant, but I had a serious offer of 10k for this Gerard Perregaux a few years ago (would have done it in an instant if it wasn't a family heirloom):


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

godan said:


> Plenty of people bash Rolexes, but few of them own any. The company's history and current level of technology are fascinating, and its corporate policies are admirable. I particularly like the way they work to reduce the discounting so common among higher end mechanicals. I enjoy mine but have no illusion that they keep time better than almost any quartz. The really interesting watches these days are the solar-powered models from Citizen and Seiko. Now somebody can post that only superficial showoffs own Rolexes.


I agree. I am in the fortunate position to own several relatively high-end watches, including a Rolex. They are fine watches. They are no more the place to go for cut-throat value-for-money than anyone else in the so-called luxury business, and of course you can get a perfectly serviceable watch for $20 and I am sure you can get a technically better watch for less than you pay for a Rolex. (I hear the same argument all the time about Bang & Olufsen stereo systems, which personally I also like). A gentleman pays his money and takes his choice.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

Only not on the list because I forgot it. Corrected!


----------



## Mister Krabs (Jun 1, 2012)

I am happy with a citizen eco-drive. They fulfill my requirements in a watch; impeccably accurate, more stylish and durable than could reasonably be expected at the price point. Eco-drives require neither servicing nor batteries, though some would say that they are lacking in soul.


----------



## sidkane (May 22, 2004)

Leighton said:


> Watch U Seek is the correct forum to pose this question to.


I got into watches a few years ago and learned a lot at watch u seek, time zone and the Rolex forum (good info on non-Rolex as well). For a first step after a quartz seiko, I'd go look at their affordable watch threads too. As far as spending five figures on a watch, it's a matter of priorities and interests, no different than expensive shoes or suits. The one advantage with a nicer watch is that, if taken care of, it will last for decades, can be passed down to your kid or sold.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

sidkane said:


> The one advantage with a nicer watch is that, if taken care of, it will last for decades, can be passed down to your kid or sold.


In many cases, they also retain their value much better than other items of 'menswear' (obviously I am using this term loosely)


----------



## sidkane (May 22, 2004)

Here's a discussion on wus about tiers. https://forums.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=667495


----------



## marg (Jan 13, 2011)

The_Consultant said:


> My completely incomplete list of "high-end" watch tiers. Feel free to hack away...
> 
> *Top*:
> - Audemars Piguet
> ...


Sorry to be difficult, but I need to weigh in here. I agree with what you have included in your top section, but more deserve to be included. An IWC movement, if in house, is borderline unequaled. Likewise, a Zenith movement is also quite superior - their movement powered the Daytona before Rolex switched to an in-house movement. The fact that Vacheron is listed in Tier 2 blew my mind. Why did you decide that? I wouldn't have Hublot on this list at all.

I currently own a Rolex submariner and a vintage gold IWC Shauffhausen. My next purchase will either be a Zenith or IWC Portuguese 7-day power reserve.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

godan said:


> Plenty of people bash Rolexes, but few of them own any. The company's history and current level of technology are fascinating, and its corporate policies are admirable. I particularly like the way they work to reduce the discounting so common among higher end mechanicals. *I enjoy mine but have no illusion that they keep time better than almost any quartz.* The really interesting watches these days are the solar-powered models from Citizen and Seiko. Now somebody can post that only superficial showoffs own Rolexes.


I would venture to phrase that the other way 'almost any quartz will absolutely keep better time than a Rolex'. Rolex are not a superior movement by any means, even being 'certified'. Their acceptable variance is 5 minutes +/- per month. I'm a bad watch owner and don't keep them on a winder; if one stops, oh well, I reset it and know that I'll have the right time for the few days that I wear it. That said, I think that Rolex keeps some of the worst time of mechanical watches, but they are still a classic piece and have panache that no others do.

As for the hierarchy, I feel that Patek stands on its own above and beyond, being one of the few that are still entirely crafted by hand. A Patek is one of the few I would not hesitate to spend five figures on. For a point of reference: Rolex makes more watches in a year than Patek has since their inception over 100 years ago.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

No worries — I knew this might be controversial when I wrote it. I put Vacheron as second tier because it's one of the brands that died off and was then purchased and restarted — similar to Breguet. I like the look of the VC's, I juts don't think they are top tier these days.

I put Zenith in tier two because (my opinion only) they've gotten quite busy — a little Breitling-ish — in the last few years. I have no doubt that the movement itself is top-tier.

Hublot has been doing some nice work of late, but I agree — maybe tier 3 for them.

Again, this is all my personal opinion having followed and collected watches over the past 20 years or so. Not only are the placements opinion, but the lines between the tiers are amorphous at best. Just an attempt to make some sense of the huge number of options out there.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> As for the hierarchy, I feel that Patek stands on its own above and beyond, being one of the few that are still entirely crafted by hand. A Patek is one of the few I would not hesitate to spend five figures on. For a point of reference: Rolex makes more watches in a year than Patek has since their inception over 100 years ago.


Does Patek make the movement completely in-house these days? I was under the impression that they purchase the chronograph movement from Dubois-Depraz in some models. And the quartz movements of course.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

godan said:


> Now somebody can post that only superficial showoffs own Rolexes.


Au contraire , Rolexes are also owned by profound, detailed, and serious showoffs.


----------



## Owen Meany (Jul 10, 2008)

godan said:


> Plenty of people bash Rolexes, but few of them own any. The company's history and current level of technology are fascinating, and its corporate policies are admirable. I particularly like the way they work to reduce the discounting so common among higher end mechanicals. I enjoy mine but have no illusion that they keep time better than almost any quartz. The really interesting watches these days are the solar-powered models from Citizen and Seiko. Now somebody can post that only superficial showoffs own Rolexes.


I only said so because if it were not for timezone.com I would never had learned of my now favorite Glashutte Original Sports Evo Panodate with the amazingly tough and functional bracelet. Whereas otherwise, I may have purchased a Rolex without knowing what was out there for truly wonderful watches...


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

pusso said:


> Watches that have Swiss movements rather than Japanese are considered superior.... I hope this helps you.


I'm not sure who you've been talking to, but a hi-beat Grand Seiko (Japan) movement is far far far superior to anything ETA (Swiss) is putting out.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

The_Consultant said:


> *Lower but still great:
> *- Panerai
> - Bell & Ross
> - IWC
> ...


I'm sorry to call you out, but this is nonsense. No company that produces watches that count as Haute Horology can be considered "lower". Stowa, Sinn, and Bremont use stock ETA movements while IWC, Omega, and to a lesser extent Panerai use in-house movements. IWC was the first company to produce an easy to use perpetual calendar, the first company to produce a fly back chrono for less than $10,000, and have some of the longest power reserves in the world.

I won't even go into why AP is inferior to ALS and PP, but no "top" company should be using a modular chronograph movement... which Rolex, Omega, and IWC all seem to realize.


----------



## sartoriallytactical (Dec 9, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> Au contraire , Rolexes are also owned by profound, detailed, and serious showoffs.


For the win.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

joenobody0 said:


> I'm sorry to call you out, but this is nonsense. No company that produces watches that count as Haute Horology can be considered "lower". Stowa, Sinn, and Bremont use stock ETA movements while IWC, Omega, and to a lesser extent Panerai use in-house movements. IWC was the first company to produce an easy to use perpetual calendar, the first company to produce a fly back chrono for less than $10,000, and have some of the longest power reserves in the world.
> 
> I won't even go into why AP is inferior to ALS and PP, but no "top" company should be using a modular chronograph movement... which Rolex, Omega, and IWC all seem to realize.


As I said, it's my opinion. I was trying to give a cross-section of watches in each category. Sorry if I offended you somehow - I wasn't implying that IWC isn't a great watch, just stating how I'd rank the brands.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I think it's a very good list, especially allowing, as you do, that they are all great, fabulous watches.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Once one concludes that mechanical is the way to go, the definition of a good (great) movement is one that optimises reliability and accuracy. If one firm makes an exquisite and complex movement in-house, and another buys in a less complex movement - but the latter is both more reliable (lasts longer and needs less maintenance) and more accurate, then the latter movement is superior and if a firm chooses to continue with the former its watches are fundamentally inferior to a company which buys in the latter. Now it may be more difficult to compare when movement A is more reliable but B is more accurate, but if B beats A on both, then there's no contest nor honest argument. It may also be more difficult to compare _watches_ if A has subjectively better-looking watches, and superior external materials, but if watch A has this inferior movement and no better designs nor materials while B has the superior movement, it doesn't matter that A has a name going back 200 years and is assembled by naked Swiss milkmaids in a small chalet in Chur while B is made in an anonymous crumbling building in Sha Tin HK by retired opium dealers - B is the superior watch.


----------



## pusso (May 5, 2009)

joenobody0 said:


> I'm not sure who you've been talking to, but a hi-beat Grand Seiko (Japan) movement is far far far superior to anything ETA (Swiss) is putting out.


I agree that on the technology front the Japanese have it nailed!

However, I wouldn't part with my traditional Swiss movement watch for the world - and because it's nit on a steel bracelet I can have bespoke alligator straps in any colour when the strap wears out to ring the changes!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Here's a recent thread on WUS that does a head-to-head between a Grand Seiko and an Omega Aqua Terra. Amazing pics. The bottom line is that both watches are drool-worthy. For the uninitiated, I think it will change perceptions regarding Japanese watches. Seiko > cheap mall watches, although Seiko certainly makes plenty of those.

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/good-gets-grand-seiko-9s85-versus-omega-8500-a-744531.html


----------



## jc1305us (Jan 13, 2009)

*Watches*

Not an expert by any means, but I am a bit of an aficianado. That being said, my .02 goes something like this:
A Patek Phillipe is just about the top of the heap. They are incredibly well made, finely detailed works of watchmaking art. Rolex makes more watches in one year than PP has made in their entire history. They are heirloom quality that will appreciate in price as the years go on. Now, after Patek, there are a very good number of manufacturers that qualify as Very, very high end brands, Vacheron Constantin, A Lange & Sohn, Jaeger Le Coultre, Breguet, Zenith, etc. 
After that, we have our high end, i.e. Rolex, Grand Seiko, Omega, IWC among others. 
After that is the mid level, i.e. Tag Heuer, Seiko, etc. 
Again, just my .02!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> That's neither true nor helpful. It all depends on the movements. Both Swiss and Japanese movements come in ranges from entry level to eye-poppingly complex and expensive.


+1.....


----------

