Luxury ≠ longevity (at least not in all cases). My sub-100 dollar gshock is doing quite fine after 11 years of constant use. I've only had "luxury" watches for the past 2 or 3 years, so I can't really compare the two as of now.

 

A G shock literally only exists to last. I would say most luxury watches are built to last.

 

One of the selling points for luxury watches is always their supposed better longevity and durability compared to their affordable counterparts.

Not sure who's actually making that claim.

The main difference I see is that a 30k€ Patek Philippe will get serviced, while a 300€ Tissot will not. If maintained well, both movements could last for centuries. It's easy to find working pocket watches from around 1900 on ebay, and if you get them serviced, you could just use them daily, no matter if it was made by Omega or Ingersoll.

 

Not sure who's actually making that claim.

I do not agree...many people do and it is a common line used to people, even on this forum, asking for advice "......it cost more but a ....(fill the blanks, Rolex, Omega, etc..)...will last you for a lifetime".

 

One of the selling points for luxury watches is always their supposed better longevity and durability compared to their affordable counterparts.

Nop, the selling points for luxury watches are in fact luxury and the intangible "features" that comes in the pack... status, glamour, exclusivity, prestige, history, brand awareness....

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk

 

Certain "luxury" brands are more reliable. For example, Rolex is pretty notorious for its long term reliability.

 

I think you also pay for features, craftsmanship, special wear resistant coatings and materials, precious materials (gold, diamonds, platinum), certifications of features (cosc, etc). Without those things, the prices may not be all that far off. Hard to just boil it down just to durability.

 

I think you also pay for features, craftsmanship, special wear resistant coatings and materials, precious materials (gold, diamonds, platinum), certifications of features (cosc, etc)

= tangible features

High Tangible features + High intangible features = luxury

Like if Panerai and Hublot became popular due to their durability / longevity

Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk

 

It depends what you're doing to the watch in those 20 years. There are too many variables to really specify a wholesale conclusion.
I would venture to say the Rolex will look better due to the higher initial build quality and upgraded materials with regards to fade resistance and corrosion, but that doesn't say much about functioning. Both will likely function just fine if maintained reasonably. But there's no way to know without controlled, long-term testing with a statistically-sound sample size.

As far as failures of hands, spring bars, etc. Those are component failures and don't really fall into the category of general durability. It is not expected that any modern watch has spring bar failures or hands falling off. Those have to do with construction or design and are not exclusively limited (or correlated) by price.

What you do run into (and might extrapolate from) is the design life of some of these watches. A duro likely isn't designed to be around in 20-50 years. Plastic parts, throwaway movements, lesser materials all lead to an end game where the brand expects you to eventually replace it. It has a useful life (even if Casio doesn't specify it, I am sure they acknowledge it). A rolex is intended to work in perpetuity, or at least the crown's idea of perpetuity. It is designed to be serviced and serviceable for far beyond a couple decades.

I think what people mean is that there is a distinction in their design intent that is supported by the initial build quality. Not necessarily that your SKX won't last (i.e. survive) as long as a Submariner under reasonable working conditions. Some watches are intended to last a lifetime and there are design steps taken to fulfill that. That doesn't mean the $500 seiko-powered watch won't last, just that the longevity wasn't as powerful a design criteria and it may be missing those concrete steps to help it achieve a two-decade life.

Longevity and durability are not implicitly linked. People can make inexpensive stuff last a long time. People can ruin nice stuff. A tuna is probably a lot more durable than a sub, but I bet more subs are around in decent condition in 20 years.

 

It depends what you're doing to the watch in those 20 years. There are too many variables to really specify a wholesale conclusion.
I would venture to say the Rolex will look better due to the higher initial build quality and upgraded materials with regards to fade resistance and corrosion, but that doesn't say much about functioning. Both will likely function just fine if maintained reasonably. But there's no way to know without controlled, long-term testing with a statistically-sound sample size.

As far as failures of hands, spring bars, etc. Those are component failures and don't really fall into the category of general durability. It is not expected that any modern watch has spring bar failures or hands falling off. Those have to do with construction or design and are not exclusively limited (or correlated) by price.

What you do run into (and might extrapolate from) is the design life of some of these watches. A duro likely isn't designed to be around in 20-50 years. Plastic parts, throwaway movements, lesser materials all lead to an end game where the brand expects you to eventually replace it. It has a useful life (even if Casio doesn't specify it, I am sure they acknowledge it). A rolex is intended to work in perpetuity, or at least the crown's idea of perpetuity. It is designed to be serviced and serviceable for far beyond a couple decades.

I think what people mean is that there is a distinction in their design intent that is supported by the initial build quality. Not necessarily that your SKX won't last (i.e. survive) as long as a Submariner under reasonable working conditions. Some watches are intended to last a lifetime and there are design steps taken to fulfill that. That doesn't mean the $500 seiko-powered watch won't last, just that the longevity wasn't as powerful a design criteria and it may be missing those concrete steps to help it achieve a two-decade life.

Longevity and durability are not implicitly linked. People can make inexpensive stuff last a long time. People can ruin nice stuff. A tuna is probably a lot more durable than a sub, but I bet more subs are around in decent condition in 20 years.

Interesting comment thank you.

A duro likely isn't designed to be around in 20-50 years. Plastic parts, throwaway movements, lesser materials all lead to an end game where the brand expects you to eventually replace it.

Indeed, the Duro has a non repairable movement that will need to be replaced when it will conks out. I was focusing more into the exterior aspect durability even more than the mechanical part.
Theoretically you can still replace the movement on a 20-30 years old Duro (when you service a mechanical, you still need to replace parts anyway) and that movement is so basic (3 hands with date) that you will probably find a similar movement to put in the case if you cannot find the original part. But, as we discussed, financially simply it does not make sense..
Finally, the Duro does not have exposed plastic parts.

 

a better picture can be seen if u‘re to do a static report compilation on how frequent premium movement watches gets frequent visits to WatchSmiths to get serviced even when owners encountered little discrepancies on timing accuracies...

when one pays a premium price on a premium product, they expects premium performance, forgetting that there are other bigger factors affecting the price goes premium besides the focus on movements.

 

Kind of hard to say because any mechanical watch can theoretically be serviced and last a lifetime and beyond. And the highly skilled watchmakers can polish and clean the outside of a watch to make it look basically new.

I don't want to speak on brands I'm not too familiar with, so I'll stick to Seiko. Seikos are known to be durable, even the cheap ones. From personal experience I'd agree. I recently acquired a Seiko mechanical from the late 70s, never serviced. It started up with a shake, and the watch looked no more worse for wear than a Rolex from that era if it was never serviced.

My personal opinion here (and I'd love to hear differing opinions if anyone has them) is that the TYPE of watch has more bearing than the price level. I'd imagine a complicated dress watch wouldn't have the type of longevity and/or durability as a simple 3-hander sports watch.

 

I'd imagine a complicated dress watch wouldn't have the type of longevity and/or durability as a simple 3-hander sports watch.

Yes, that is the reason why I picked similar watches in style and purposes (diver/tool) for my example.

 

I don’t think price has anything to do with durability. I do think you're right about a more expensive watch is more likely to be serviced and have better parts availability.

 

I don't think price has anything to do with durability. I do think you're right about a more expensive watch is more likely to be serviced and have better parts availability.

Maybe not the price, but the production volume surely does. The more quantities are produced, the more robust and durable the watch will be. This is due to economics reasons. So I'd trust more a watch produced in high quantities than a high end watch, produced in very few numbers.

 

As I got older and more affluent, I ventured into buying a few higher-end products, and found what everybody had been saying for years to be true. Lower and middle priced items are about as good a value for the dollar as you're going to get. After you reach higher, you pay a lot more for incremental improvements. The quality is higher, but not proportional to the increase in price. And, mechanical items fail regardless of price, its just more expensive to repair the higher end products.

You may get more longevity and reliability with a higher priced watch, and you may not, its a crap shoot most of the time. I have a Sub-Zero refrigerator in the kitchen, and an old Amana in the garage. Guess which one required service first, and the service cost several times what I paid for the Amana that was still running fine. Both kept beer cold about the same.

Same with cars, my most expensive by far was the most unreliable by far.

Watches I have less experience with, but the concept is probably about the same.

 

As I got older and more affluent, I ventured into buying a few higher-end products, and found what everybody had been saying for years to be true. Lower and middle priced items are about as good a value for the dollar as you're going to get. After you reach higher, you pay a lot more for incremental improvements. The quality is higher, but not proportional to the increase in price. And, mechanical items fail regardless of price, its just more expensive to repair the higher end products.

You may get more longevity and reliability with a higher priced watch, and you may not, its a crap shoot most of the time.

^THIS^

Below is a species that has endured a pretty tough life, (40 years, HS graduation present) one owner serviced regularly just had its power module changed out with no other recent service provided.

View attachment 15701480
Just refreshed with a new power module (14th)
7548-7000
Been thinking of something new

 

The expertuseek will need to be someone with the experience of owning all these pieces and using them in the same way. I think the claims are on accuracy and not durability, unless you refer to a single crown brand that marketed themselves as rugged tool watches then decided to change to a more upscale theme.
Considering the materials we are talking about used in such watches and being put through their paces, its safe to say they will all be pretty banged up with rubber gaskets all needing replacement after 20 years.
If we start 20 years from today, all luxury brands have had their chance to catch up on durability and so have the cheap ones.

 

The first myth that needs debunking is the presence of “Experts” here!

Imo, expensive correlates with durability better than luxury does.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's called Patina if a watch is expensive

 

If you think about it there are many factors. Price you pay includes service too.
For sure more expensive watches have better quality (in some cases) but it all comes to service and willingness to spend money on one.
For sure affordable watches designed with been disposable and thus some corner cutting because you know there are no miracles things do cost money.
Is it worth it?
Who knows. Many people around here get bored before watch goes anywhere near point where difference between expensive and affordable may kick in.

What i know for sure is anything mechanical is subject to wear and tear thus glorious stories about watches working for decades if not centuries (without mentioning service) are very inflated wishful thinking. Regardless of how high end watch was.

 

WORDS!!! So many of them! To maybe answer your question, the Rolex's that I've purchased at or below MSRP have always held up VERY well (decades) and I've yet to lose money one one. Was that an answer to your question? I kinda got lost in your watch envy rant.

 

Please refrain to comment if you do not have anything intelligent to say...

 

Yep, + 20 years ago... that ship has sailed


Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk

 

Rolex, Omega and Cartier dominate the luxury watch market... do you see any average consumer of tese brands going to an AD and ask about durability? Course not just people with disposable income who like to treat themselves... nothing wrong with that, it’s the world where we living


Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk

 

I bought $100 quartz watch with stainless steel lugs and bracelet, which should not break like the resin lug in my departed $20 quartz watch. Beyond that, any higher price difference is not for longevity, in my book. : )

 

Generally speaking a cheap Seiko 7s26 movement will not have the same quality alloys used in the metal of the movement when compared to a Rolex 3135. Rolex use 904L steel in their bracelets. Omega use ceramic in their dials. Many of these higher priced watches are made of more expensive materials that will last longer. Of course they still need to be serviced. Take a look at decades old Omega and Rolex movements (even etas) and you will see that they are made of superior, more expensive alloys- and you pay for that.

 

Durability has more to do with design and materials used than price IMO.

A PP grand complication with tourbillion will not be as durable as a G Shock.

As for longevity, that’s a hard one, but there sure are a lot of quality watches still hanging in there after 50+ years at auctions, maybe it’s because the cheap watches all just get thrown away when they stop working. Mine always do.

 

What are the chances that after 2 decades the two cheap ones will show more wear and tear compared to the Sub?? Will the dials look more faded?? Will the bezel insert show more scratches and fading as well (to make the comparison fair, let's consider a pre ceramic insert Sub) More chances of the glass or the bezel popping off?? More chances of hands falling off or bracelet breakage?? Will they show more scuffs and scratches on the case and bracelet?? Are there more chances of these two stopping compared to the Sub besides the regular maintenance ( or battery change for the Duro)??

Well, I had the Casio. I'm not sure what material the bezel insert is made out of, but I scratched up my old one reaching into my trunk one time. It seems to be very soft. By contrast, my Longines with what is most likely an aluminium bezel insert shows no scratches after five years of use. So I think, if nothing else, the bezels will show a difference after X amount of years of regular and/or hard use. That's not a problem for me, because I don't mind my watches being used as watches. It's always weird to me that watch folks will freak out about the tiniest scratch on their watch but then also plonk down good money for "pre-aged" looking watches or actual old watches with patina.

There have been a number of threads here regarding old quartz watches and if they keep working. I've seen some folks with 40 year-old quartz watches that keep working well with regular battery changes. So, with regular service, both a Casio and the Rolex have the potential to keep working for decades. Of course the service on one of those watches will be far less than the service for the other.

And that's where I start to think about cost-benefit. I could pay something like 7k or 8k for a Rolex. It should be serviced every... what, 5-10 years? And each service will probably cost at least three figures. So at the end of this theoretical 40 year span, I've paid maybe close to 10k for the Rolex. Or I could spend €50 for the Casio. Assuming battery and service (most likely just replacing seals) together, it's probably nowhere near three figures. But, even if it were, at the end of 40 years I've spent nowhere near 1k. Heck, even if the watch completely breaks and needs to be replaced, I'll have spent nowhere near 1k. Maybe I'll have to replacement the quartz motor in the Casio. But, then again, maybe I'll have to replace the movement in the Rolex too at some point. And then we get into the Ship of Theseus as to when exactly a movement is completely different.

I'm not starting any kind of dynasty, nor do I expect my child(ren) to have the same taste in watches as I do. So the Patek marketing does not interest me in the least. Heck, let's be honest here, most of us are going to flip these watches before they probably even need their first service.

 

Beyond physical longevity/durability there is also style and design to factor in. A watch is often described as having a timeless design that will mean it is still popular years after purchase - both with the buyer and the watch community. Over decades that will probably be a factor in whether it is still cherished or gets discarded.

 

One of the selling points for luxury watches is always their supposed better longevity and durability compared to their affordable counterparts. For some brands is also their resale value but, again, only for some specific products...

Ever seen any Beemer owners have lots of problems with their expensive ride that they have to visit the mechanics regularly for tuning or touch ups? Why does TOYOTA keep voted as best reliable Car maker than most other marques on the road almost very year? That cost a certain fraction than a BMW make?
The same logic applies in the world of watches, where a Seiko movement costs less than a fifth of a Swiss common movement and far more cheaper than an expensive in-house Swiss calibre, yet that cheap and serviceable Japanese little engine is more reliable than what an Expensive Swiss Watch can offer... Food for thoughts man...

 

To be fair, reliability and low-maintenance are not the same thing (especially with cars). Those reliability surveys don't often take that into account. A lot of those things also take into account service cost and customer satisfaction, which are not objective measures of reliability. Moreover, BMW's tend to be substantially more complicated, so it's not really a good comparison.
The NH35 and the 32XX series of movements are both considered low-maintenance and about equally-complicated. I don't think anyone would say that the NH35 is definitively more reliable than a properly-serviced 32XX movement.

 

Longevity certainly matters to me, because part of the appeal of mechanical watches is that they are not throw-away items. I derive great pleasure from a 50 year old Grand Seiko that looks like it should last another 50 years.

 

Bought new nearly 28years ago for £1753, serviced last year (£250) after it started to run slow, and now back to a slight gain.

So if we are looking at costs, £2003 over 28 years.

Pretty long lasting and durable IMO.

Value now...... don't know but more than £2003 I would guess.

 

View attachment 15718368

Bought new nearly 28years ago for £1753, serviced last year (£250) after it started to run slow, and now back to a slight gain.

So if we are looking at costs, £2003 over 28 years.

Pretty long lasting and durable IMO.

Value now...... don't know but more than £2003 I would guess.

Bought in 1995 for the princely sum of about 55 Euros (100.000 Italian lira back then).
Spent few dollars/euros in battery replacement here and there but mainly for free at a Swatch center. Did its fair share of gardening work, outdoor activities, travel, etc...still ticking
Value?? According to ebay auctions, I should be able to unload it for at least the same amount I got it.

 

Well I'm sure as hell not an expert, but I doubt in this era of modern manufacturing techniques and machinery there is a hell of a lot difference in what Seiko and Rolex are using to pump out their products.

I think @Vornwend hit a good point when he mentioned the classic designs such as the sub.

It all depends on the product and the usage, Pratchett on boots raises some good points as well.

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

 

He also said, "Sometimes glass glitters more than diamonds because it has more to prove."
and "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."