Take this any way you want... it's a plastic watch.
I agree with your posts but I think this part might give the wrong impression about Seikos or the people who wear them, i.e., that Seiko tries to make poseur watches or that people who buy Seiko 5s are poseurs.... The Seiko 5 is the watch for the guy who wants to give the impression that he has a nice watch but that still only cost him fifty bucks. ...
Well, somebody who wants to buy something cheap to give the impression that it's more expensive is sort of the definition of a poseur, so that is what you said, really.I didn't say Seiko 5 owners are poseurs, and the fragility of many Seiko fans (and even many affordables fans in general) is what makes discussions about them tedious, to be honest.
Nevertheless, we see over and over again side-by-side comparisons of Seiko budget models and more expensive watches with the implied (and not always implied) question: why spend more? If one's purpose is to spend less because he has no answer to that question, then clearly he thinks his watch delivers a better impression than what would be expected for what he spent. That is true no matter the price point.
But Swatch buyers don't care if the watch seems better than its price. That's not at all part of their motivation.
Rick "noting that the 5 is a working-man's watch, while the Swatch is strictly a play watch" Denney
Tell the owner of a orange monster ($175 on amazon) that his watch is disposable and you will get a dirty look. The seiko 5 is $50 and way cheaper than the swatch. With inflation etc, even a rolex could cost more on service than the original price. My fathers date rolex cost more in service than he originally paid for it in 1970.Have you ever owned a watch longer than five years that was not serviced? I have. They continue to work, and mostly work well. In fact, I would go so far as to say a watch that is absolutely dry will probably run fine for a decade, even in continuous use, but will have suffered a lot of wear in that time making it expensive to service.
The Sistem 51 is disposable, with the idea that after a decade or more it will be so out of fashion that one would not wear it. After all, it's a Swatch--a "Second Watch"--none of which are intended as heirlooms.
The Seiko 5 is the watch for the guy who wants to give the impression that he has a nice watch but that still only cost him fifty bucks. Sure, it's serviceable, but who would spend a coupla hundred bucks to service a Seiko 5? In reality, they are just as disposable and just as likely to fail as the Sistem 51. But the way the Sistem 51 is made, it does not have all the regulating apparatus and so it is actually more durably regulated--there is no mobile stud carrier or regulator to get jarred out of position if it is knocked about.
The other aspect of the styling of a Seiko 5 is that one who wants a watch that looks like that would never consider a Sistem 51, and one who wants the styling of a Sistem 51 would never give a Seiko 5 a second glance. Thus, offering one as a better choice than the other is like saying that instead of that cheap two-seat hot hatchback, buy this stripped-down minivan instead, because it's a better value.
The Seiko 5 is the correct answer for someone who asks, "I want a cheap mechanical watch. What's a cheap watch that looks like an adult watch?"
The Sistem 51 is the correct answer for someone who asks, "I own 30 watches, and want something that I can wear just for fun when I want to deny the appearance of luxury and act like a kid, but still have a watch that works mechanically."
As the owner of many pin-lever watches back in the day, I can say with some assurance that they never lasted long enough to even need to be serviced. And I was a teenager before the Swatch existed. My suspicion is that Sistem 51 watches that are worn a lot will be destroyed by external damage long before the movement fails from lack of service. But I highly doubt many that are owned by adults will be worn every day.
Rick "they are fun, not fine" Denney
You wrote a lot about Swatch in your post. Like I said in an earlier post, I agree with almost everything you're saying, and that includes the Swatch stuff, so I'm cutting it from the quote.... Why are these aesthetic features important? It may be that a person likes the look of metal watches with some sparkle. And they would like that why? Because quality watches have established that look as the standard for nice watches.
Ergo, a person prefers the look of a Seiko 5 because it conforms to their expectation of a nice watch--an expectation established by nice watches. I do not consider that being a poseur, and if it is, then all watch owners are poseurs.
I own a Black Monster. Read my sig. I told it to myself, and I did not give myself a dirty look. Whew! I doubt that I will ever have it serviced, when it's really so easy to replace. Maybe I will, but I am not sure doing so exercises good sense. I like maintaining nice things to keep them nice--that's part of owning nice things--but I'm not sure any of these watches fall into that category. I already own a Poljot Sturmanskie that needs service but I just can't bring myself to pay what it would cost, so for now it sits in a drawer. Sure, somebody may own the Monster after me, and maybe it will be sentimental for them such that they will want to maintain it. The Swatch may be sentimental for the kid who got it for his 10th birthday, but I predict it will suffer the same fate as the cheap Timex I got for my 10th birthday (that was nevertheless no any cheaper, in real dollars, than the Swatch is today)--by the time it stops working from lack of service, the kid will be an adult and the watch will be a scratched-up mess. But, again, the OP is not ten years old, so it's a moot point.Tell the owner of a orange monster ($175 on amazon) that his watch is disposable and you will get a dirty look
You are fighting me too hard on this point. Is the game worth the candle?You wrote a lot about Swatch in your post. Like I said in an earlier post, I agree with almost everything you're saying, and that includes the Swatch stuff, so I'm cutting it from the quote.
What I'm saying is that Seiko likely designs their watches to look nice, not to "give the impression" (your words) that they cost more than they actually do. And most people who buy those Seikos buy them because they look nice, again, not to "give the impression" that they're nice watches.
It has been possible to make shiny metal things in a cost effective way for many, many decades. I think by now everybody knows you can go to a drug store and pay $20 to get a watch that's just as shiny as any other watch. So if everybody knows this, then the people buying shiny watches must do it simply because they like how they look, and not because it "gives an impression" other than they think it goes with their fashion sense.
For those of you who might be curious, I came close to purchasing the watch but ultimately decided I couldn't pull the trigger.If $175 represents less than 1% of your annual incomes (after taxes), pull the trigger |>
It might be a trivial, stupid question of semantics to you but it's a pretty personal thing to me.You are fighting me too hard on this point. Is the game worth the candle?
Rick "not going to fight over the semantics of giving impressions and the motives behind them" Denney
As I said, I think that many owners of affordables, including Seikos, are too easily offended. Nearly everyone buys a watch as a matter of personal expression, and nearly everyone wants to wear a nice watch, at least most of the time. Owners of inexpensive watches have as much to express as anyone else, and they also seek out watches that will express quality at whatever price point. And everyone at all price points wants their watches to express more value than what they paid. Who wouldn't? I know I do. There is nothing about this that should be interpreted as insulting in any way.It might be a trivial, stupid question of semantics to you but it's a pretty personal thing to me.
I think Rdenney was simply saying that buyers at all price points tend to gravitate towards watches that have a compelling value proposition at their respective price point.Interesting assumption and possibly a distillation of what's been bothering me. Because, no, I don't want my watch to "express value."