[UpstandingCitizen]

I only moderate because the pay was too good to pass up.

In all seriousness though, you made a good point, as I should have qualified my assertion by saying that there certainly are intangible features that can and do matter to people (myself included).

The difference (to me) is that some intangible features (such as company history, in-house movements, etc.) are typically valued by those who aren't concerned solely with brand image/social status. Intangible features such as these would seem to be valued by those who see their watch as much more than a mere piece of jewelry.

As for the boutique brands, those are (for the most part)
all mechanical divers, and I've sort of tired of those. My new passion is for quartz, and more specifically solar/atomic or HEQ. :great:

If this is true, why do you own Seikos and citizens, why are you on a Seiko/ Citizen forum, and why are you a moderator no less?

Seiko and Citizen (and Casio) offer great bang for buck, but if you only assess a watch by the tangible features offered then they can't compete with the Micro-Brews.

Take a the Sumo, a forum (and Recliner ) darling: 200 m WR, mineral crystal, cheap pressed clasp, 21,600 bph movement, printed aluminium bezel insert. Compare it with any of the $$$ competitive micro divers, like DB for instance, and you get 1000 - 2000 m WR, thick sapphire (often domed with AR), chunky machined clasps, 28,800 bph, engraved bezel insert (often with lumed markings)...

I'm not about to swap my Sumo for a DB 2000 m, as I value heritage and history, inhouse design and construction, and knowing that Seiko is likely to be around in 50 years time. These are not tangible aspects of quality or features, but they have value to meand many others. Presumably yourself included!

 

[SouthPender]

I fully agree with his assertion that "...brand image and cachet as they relate to how nice a watch is are all a bunch of hooey."

It may be a bunch of hooey to you (as it would be to me), but it certainly isn't to the guy that wants the cachet. He'll get as much pleasure from his Rolex as you will from your favorite Seiko, and thus his money has been well-spent. So, if it is, as you say, "all a bunch of hooey," this other guy must be wrong in deriving pleasure from a quality that you don't value, a classically egocentric view.

Most of the world would see our interest in the fine points of Seiko and Citizen watches as a "bunch of hooey." To them, a watch is to give you the right time, and the appearance of the watch is of no importance, nor is its ability to stay within ± 10 or 30 seconds per year. The guy who puts chunks of his disposable income into custom-made rifles (as I once did) or art, or cars would laugh at our obsessions, because, in his value system, watches are unimportant, and higher-quality watches are just a "bunch of hooey."

 

[ADB]

It may be a bunch of hooey to you (as it would be to me), but it certainly isn't to the guy that wants the cachet. He'll get as much pleasure from his Rolex as you will from your favorite Seiko, and thus his money has been well-spent. So, if it is, as you say, "all a bunch of hooey," this other guy must be wrong in deriving pleasure from a quality that you don't value, a classically egocentric view.
...

If - as in your hypothetical example - a guy buys a Rolex because he wants the cachet associated with the watch, then I am sorry for this poor chap, because:

• 
  He lacks taste.
  He lacks knowledge of what a good watch is.
  He lacks discernment on how to spend his money.

And: his need for the prestige associated with owning a Rolex (i.e. an external sign of wealth) also means him and I don't share the same values: mine are based on true horological appreciation whereas his are based on what? cupidity?
Not all values are equal and that's not an egocentric attitude, that's just having solid foundations for one's values in life.

 

[minidriver]

If - as in your hypothetical example - a guy buys a Rolex because he wants the cachet associated with the watch, then I am sorry for this poor chap, because:

• 
  He lacks taste.
  He lacks knowledge of what a good watch is.
  He lacks discernment on how to spend his money.

Andrew, not to stereotype, but the vast majority of Rolex customers fall within the 3 characteristics that you noted above.

 

[TheTigerUK]

It may be a bunch of hooey to you (as it would be to me), but it certainly isn't to the guy that wants the cachet. He'll get as much pleasure from his Rolex as you will from your favorite Seiko, and thus his money has been well-spent. So, if it is, as you say, "all a bunch of hooey," this other guy must be wrong in deriving pleasure from a quality that you don't value, a classically egocentric view.

Most of the world would see our interest in the fine points of Seiko and Citizen watches as a "bunch of hooey." To them, a watch is to give you the right time, and the appearance of the watch is of no importance, nor is its ability to stay within ± 10 or 30 seconds per year. The guy who puts chunks of his disposable income into custom-made rifles (as I once did) or art, or cars would laugh at our obsessions, because, in his value system, watches are unimportant, and higher-quality watches are just a "bunch of hooey."

:iagree: :clap:

 

[ADB]

Andrew, not to stereotype, but the vast majority of Rolex customers fall within the 3 characteristics that you noted above.

)
That's so true, Frank!

 

[SouthPender]

If - as in your hypothetical example - a guy buys a Rolex because he wants the cachet associated with the watch, then I am sorry for this poor chap.

Don't be; he will be every bit as happy with his purchase as you will with your new Seiko.

He lacks taste.

Correction: his tastes are different from yours.

He lacks knowledge of what a good watch is.

"Good" to him is different from "good" to you. To him, a Rolex is a good watch because it meets his needs.

He lacks discernment on how to spend his money.

Not at all. He is capable of discerning what will give him pleasure in a watch purchase.

Not all values are equal and that's not an egocentric attitude, that's just having solid foundations for one's values in life.

That assertion really opens a philosophical chasm. By what standards and criteria do we rank-order different values? Believing that one's own values are superior to those of others is absolutely egocentric--it provides close to a definition of the term. Who is to say that the Rolex buyer's foundations for one's life values are less solid than yours (or mine)? Making that assumption is indeed egocentric--it would fail to meet any test of objectivity.

 

[Isthmus]

I always find the whole concept of "cachet" to be generally more important to those observing it that to those displaying it. What I find funniest is that exclusivity when it comes to products is very often defined by products whose truly exceptional qualities are what set them apart, and often carry discrete hidden brand marks or none at all. Branding and the obsession with it is largely more of a mass market approach to luxury. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it is generally corporate driven and I just find it peculiar that people would place so much the definition of their self worth on a corporate brand. It just seems silly to me.

 

[SouthPender]

I always find the whole concept of "cachet" to be generally more important to those observing it that to those displaying it. What I find funniest is that exclusivity when it comes to products is very often defined by products whose truly exceptional qualities are what set them apart, and often carry discrete hidden brand marks or none at all. Branding and the obsession with it is largely more of a mass market approach to luxury. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it is generally corporate driven and I just find it peculiar that people would place so much the definition of their self worth on a corporate brand. It just seems silly to me.

It's understandable if we relate this tendency (to value cachet) to certain basic personality and psychopathological traits that different people have, and which taken collectively define--at least to the outside observer--these people. My guess is that feelings of insecurity and low ego-strength might account for needing the affirmation that high-prestige products bring. So, in my opinion, this is not silly, but rather a natural behavioral tendency driven by deeply-embedded personality and character traits. Other patterns would explain this tendency too. A very high need for achievement might make the purchase of a Rolex a reasonable behavior for such a person. One's environment too will play a role. If one is a member of a highly-competitive work team or company, in which success is measured by monetary factors and the symbols that stand for these, purchase of a Rolex makes sense and will produce pleasure for the buyer.

I think we have to be careful here. As I noted earlier, most would consider our hobby as odd, and our valuation of high-quality Japanese watches as "a bunch of hooey." Evaluating the behavior of others from only our own perspective is egocentric. There are many factors that explain human behavior, and, in my opinion, the best way to remain objective (and tolerant) is to simply regard behaviors--and the values that lead to them--that are different from our own as just "different," rather than silly, wrong, pathetic, etc.

 

[nhoj]

There are many factors that explain human behavior, and, in my opinion, the best way to remain objective (and tolerant) is to simply regard behaviors--and the values that lead to them--that are different from our own as just "different," rather than silly, wrong, pathetic, etc.

:great: :great: :great: :great: :great:

 

[ADB]

"Don't worry, she's just a little bit different..."

Please can we get back on topic? So, if I can gather the general feeling in this thread, the Casio lacks cachet and nobody in this fine forum of Japanese watch aficionados is willing to pony up $1500 for this state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line finely made timekeeping machine?
I know Frank is going to buy the Seiko E-paper watch that costs just as much, but I understand that's because of the display technology, is that it, Frank? So perhaps the Casio, besides lacking cachet, also lacks any exclusive, one-of-a-kind feature (that by the way is my personal feeling)?

 

[minidriver]

Very tempted by the Seiko EPD e-Ink to the point of putting up for sale my Seiko Radiowave Solar Digital SBFG001 on the chopping block today. :57:


And the EPD, is cheaper than the Oceanus! )

 

[doc4]

If - as in your hypothetical example - a guy buys a Rolex because he wants the cachet associated with the watch, then I am sorry for this poor chap, because:

• 
  He lacks taste.
  He lacks knowledge of what a good watch is.
  He lacks discernment on how to spend his money.

And: his need for the prestige associated with owning a Rolex (i.e. an external sign of wealth) also means him and I don't share the same values: mine are based on true horological appreciation whereas his are based on what? cupidity?
Not all values are equal and that's not an egocentric attitude, that's just having solid foundations for one's values in life.

I thought guys who bought Rolexes (Rolicses? I wonder what the plural of "Rolex" is ... ) bought them to impress chicks in bars and get laid. (BTW, that chick's eyes glaze over pretty quick once you start in on your dissertation about "8f35 ... in-house movement ... Japanese domestic market ... perpetual calendar ... " ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

 

[time]

Please can we get back on topic? So, if I can gather the general feeling in this thread, the Casio lacks cachet and nobody in this fine forum of Japanese watch aficionados is willing to pony up $1500 for this state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line finely made timekeeping machine?

I am considering it. Between this one and an Attesa at the moment, but not until next year.

 

[jason_recliner]

I thought guys who bought Rolexes bought them to impress chicks in bars and get laid.

If only it impressed my wife that much!

;D

 

[TheTigerUK]

Don't be; he will be every bit as happy with his purchase as you will with your new Seiko.
Correction: his tastes are different from yours.
"Good" to him is different from "good" to you. To him, a Rolex is a good watch because it meets his needs.
Not at all. He is capable of discerning what will give him pleasure in a watch purchase.
That assertion really opens a philosophical chasm. By what standards and criteria do we rank-order different values? Believing that one's own values are superior to those of others is absolutely egocentric--it provides close to a definition of the term. Who is to say that the Rolex buyer's foundations for one's life values are less solid than yours (or mine)? Making that assumption is indeed egocentric--it would fail to meet any test of objectivity.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

[time]

I think we have to be careful here. As I noted earlier, most would consider our hobby as odd, and our valuation of high-quality Japanese watches as "a bunch of hooey." Evaluating the behavior of others from only our own perspective is egocentric. There are many factors that explain human behavior, and, in my opinion, the best way to remain objective (and tolerant) is to simply regard behaviors--and the values that lead to them--that are different from our own as just "different," rather than silly, wrong, pathetic, etc.

:bravo_2:

 

[minidriver]

I am considering it. Between this one and an Attesa at the moment, but not until next year.

Which Attesa?

 

[minidriver]

I thought guys who bought Rolexes (Rolicses? I wonder what the plural of "Rolex" is ... ) bought them to impress chicks in bars and get laid. (BTW, that chick's eyes glaze over pretty quick once you start in on your dissertation about "8f35 ... in-house movement ... Japanese domestic market ... perpetual calendar ... " ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Trust me, that 8F35 is a guaranteed chick magnet!

 

[time]

Which Attesa?

Well, I did try to find one like Andrew's (the red LE), but its long sold out.
I am looking into a either a high end Oceanus or an Attesa for 2011, no more watches for 2010* (unless its an emergency)!