Recently, for its 55th anniversary of its (and frankly Japan’s) first diver, Seiko released 3 limited-edition models with a blue-grey dial, the SLA037, SLA039, and SLA041, which correspond to its longtime models, the 62MAS, the MM300, and the Tuna, respectively. For now, I’d like to focus only on the SLA037, Seiko’s “re-creation” of its first diving watch limited to 1100 pieces:
Despite being an objectively, aesthetically pleasing watch, and I say that with all intent and bias, there is a lot of hate around this timepiece, in particular its price of $6300 USD. Perhaps, if this was a once-in-a-generation remaking of its iconic diver, I, along with many others might let it slide, but Seiko still refuses to make any sense.
You see, Seiko released a “reproduction” of its first dive watch, the 62MAS, 3 years ago in 2017. This watch was also a limited edition of 2000 pieces with a price of about $4000 USD.
The differences between the two are miniscule with the main advantage of the SLA037 being a hi-beat caliber (8L55) and an Ever-Brilliant steel case, a metal that no one apparently has any information on. So besides the ridiculous pricing (strike 1), Seiko released TWO limited edition timepieces to commemorate its first diver (strike 2), thus making consumers really question how special these and future limited editions will truly be. If only Seiko stopped here, it could be accredited to a faulty marketing decision, but of course, there had to be a strike 3. Enter the recent SBDC107
Before I am ambushed by the mob of fans of this model (and the SBDC101), allow me to clarify. I love both models. While the SBDC107 is “limited” to 5500 pieces, the grey dial SBDC101 is not, and both are priced very reasonably in the range of $1100-1400. For this price, one gets a very nice looking watch with an updated 70 hour caliber and a ton of heritage. And the best part, it is extremely wearable at 40.5mm.
But, considering the SLA017 and SLA037, both models that cost 4-5x more than this new release, one has to be baffled by what Seiko is doing with its current modern “re-interpretation” of the 62MAS. They are great watches, and can compete with even the Tudor BB 58 for some! But what does that say about Seiko’s first two homages? They definitely are not 4-5x more watch, and the limited-edition logo cannot be worth that much. Was Seiko merely testing the waters for an eventual mass-produced tribute to the 62MAS?
Regardless of the motivation, it feels like Seiko is trying to accomplish every objective at once, even if they are mutually conflicting. Seiko wants to move upmarket, so they release overpriced (to many) limited-edition versions of one of their most famous watches—the 62MAS. But conversely, they still want to appease their fan base by releasing an affordable version of the 62MAS that is 5x cheaper than their expensive first model.
To put this in perspective, imagine Tudor releasing an homage to its Submariner line—something many anticipate--as an overpriced limited-edition only to release a second homage that is nearly identical for much, much cheaper. This marketing strategy makes no sense to me because it does not seem to satisfy anyone.
One may say long time fans are happy to have a well-priced 62MAS, but that also means that Seiko as a brand has failed to push itself upmarket. Meanwhile, hardcore fans that bought the expensive homage version may feel possibly cheated. After all, is a bit of exclusivity, a different caliber, and whatever ever-brilliant steel is, really worth the enormous price differential? No modern brand prices their limited edition releases with this disparity, barring the inclusion of a lot of precious metals. Sure, limited edition Omegas can cost a few thousand dollars more than the standard version, but the price discrepancy there may only be 2x at most.
The only way I can make sense of Seiko’s move is that the brand is trying to create micro-cultures of fans. It is hoping that wallet-heavy supporters will relish in the subtle differences between their model and the model for masses, thus allowing for a boost in image while simultaneously pleasing its standard base with cost-efficient time pieces. To me, that doesn’t really make sense, but as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I really hope I’m wrong.

Despite being an objectively, aesthetically pleasing watch, and I say that with all intent and bias, there is a lot of hate around this timepiece, in particular its price of $6300 USD. Perhaps, if this was a once-in-a-generation remaking of its iconic diver, I, along with many others might let it slide, but Seiko still refuses to make any sense.
You see, Seiko released a “reproduction” of its first dive watch, the 62MAS, 3 years ago in 2017. This watch was also a limited edition of 2000 pieces with a price of about $4000 USD.

The differences between the two are miniscule with the main advantage of the SLA037 being a hi-beat caliber (8L55) and an Ever-Brilliant steel case, a metal that no one apparently has any information on. So besides the ridiculous pricing (strike 1), Seiko released TWO limited edition timepieces to commemorate its first diver (strike 2), thus making consumers really question how special these and future limited editions will truly be. If only Seiko stopped here, it could be accredited to a faulty marketing decision, but of course, there had to be a strike 3. Enter the recent SBDC107

Before I am ambushed by the mob of fans of this model (and the SBDC101), allow me to clarify. I love both models. While the SBDC107 is “limited” to 5500 pieces, the grey dial SBDC101 is not, and both are priced very reasonably in the range of $1100-1400. For this price, one gets a very nice looking watch with an updated 70 hour caliber and a ton of heritage. And the best part, it is extremely wearable at 40.5mm.
But, considering the SLA017 and SLA037, both models that cost 4-5x more than this new release, one has to be baffled by what Seiko is doing with its current modern “re-interpretation” of the 62MAS. They are great watches, and can compete with even the Tudor BB 58 for some! But what does that say about Seiko’s first two homages? They definitely are not 4-5x more watch, and the limited-edition logo cannot be worth that much. Was Seiko merely testing the waters for an eventual mass-produced tribute to the 62MAS?
Regardless of the motivation, it feels like Seiko is trying to accomplish every objective at once, even if they are mutually conflicting. Seiko wants to move upmarket, so they release overpriced (to many) limited-edition versions of one of their most famous watches—the 62MAS. But conversely, they still want to appease their fan base by releasing an affordable version of the 62MAS that is 5x cheaper than their expensive first model.
To put this in perspective, imagine Tudor releasing an homage to its Submariner line—something many anticipate--as an overpriced limited-edition only to release a second homage that is nearly identical for much, much cheaper. This marketing strategy makes no sense to me because it does not seem to satisfy anyone.
One may say long time fans are happy to have a well-priced 62MAS, but that also means that Seiko as a brand has failed to push itself upmarket. Meanwhile, hardcore fans that bought the expensive homage version may feel possibly cheated. After all, is a bit of exclusivity, a different caliber, and whatever ever-brilliant steel is, really worth the enormous price differential? No modern brand prices their limited edition releases with this disparity, barring the inclusion of a lot of precious metals. Sure, limited edition Omegas can cost a few thousand dollars more than the standard version, but the price discrepancy there may only be 2x at most.
The only way I can make sense of Seiko’s move is that the brand is trying to create micro-cultures of fans. It is hoping that wallet-heavy supporters will relish in the subtle differences between their model and the model for masses, thus allowing for a boost in image while simultaneously pleasing its standard base with cost-efficient time pieces. To me, that doesn’t really make sense, but as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I really hope I’m wrong.