Actually, around here that would be "high end".No, it’s not. It’s an extremely expensive but very nice sports watch. The categorisation of luxury doesn’t necessarily mean very expensive, it means the movement and the finishing of the whole watch is done according to the highest standards, e.g. Geneva Seal. The Rolex cal. 9001 is a very good and reliable movement with an annual calendar but nothing extraordinary.
The category of „luxury sports watches“ has been created by AP with the launch of the Royal Oak, followed by PP with the Nautilus and Vacheron Constantin with their model 222. Everything else (almost) is just a sports watch, regardless of the price of the watch.
I didn’t talk about just luxury, I talked about the category „luxury sports watches“. This is a category of its own (created and defined by the holy trinity) and no, neither Longines nor Rolex belongs to this category. High end as a category unfortunately isn’t a precise term and everyone has an individual definition, in most cases driven by the price of the watch.Actually, around here that would be "high end".
"Luxury" on these forums more often seems to just mean a level up from pedestrian watches. "Luxury" could be anything from something like Longines, to Rolex.
Well this is the "high-end" forum. And, IMO, that's a better defined term (on WUS at least) than "luxury" or "luxury sports watch". Yes, "high-end" still somewhat ill defined, but there are many threads on this forum providing some definition and context and debate, and mostly not centered purely around price.I didn’t talk about just luxury, I talked about the category „luxury sports watches“. This is a category of its own (created and defined by the holy trinity) and no, neither Longines nor Rolex belongs to this category. High end as a category unfortunately isn’t a precise term and everyone has an individual definition, in most cases driven by the price of the watch.
Because the TO asked how it can be that the RO is a sports watch with only 50m water resistance. And the simple answer to this is that a RO isn’t a simple sports watch, it belongs to the category of „luxury sport watches“, created by this own brand (AP)....
I would find it odd if "luxury sports watch" was basically defined as being "a high-end watch" that's a sports watch. That just further confuses "high-end" and "luxury". Why not just follow the lead of this forum, and call them "high-end sports watches"?
Except the 2nd generation Overseas, does not have a Geneva seal.
Possibly this:But 'luxury' is? You are making oddly bold assertions about what is and isn't a luxury watch (or luxury sports watch, whatever). Care to cite your source?
Thank you for calling me and the editors of monochrome watches silly.Possibly this:
"While the concept behind a dive watch or a chronograph is pretty easy to understand, the luxury sports watch category needs to be explained. Certainly, there’s no official definition of what comprises a luxury sports watch but this is how we, at MONOCHROME, see it. A luxury sports watch is a high-end watch combining a refined, ultra-thin automatic movement with a sporty stainless steel, robust, water-resistant case incarnated by the Royal Oak watch created by Gérald Genta in 1972."
Of course, there are many lists that can be found that also include Omega, Rolex, Breitling, and other brands. And include divers or other robust watches. Like these:
There are other sources that match up with the Monochrome article, but it is an ill-defined term. I'd prefer to just call them high-end sports watches, since "luxury watch" in general seems to be used for many, many brands and watches. I think making "luxury sports watch" a term, when high-end is in the definition, seems kind of silly - instead of just saying "high-end sports watch".