# Watch Hierarchy?



## blu (Jul 31, 2016)

After reading a rather ridiculous article on the watch hierarchy of wall street (can be accessed here: http://uk.businessinsider.com/gselevator-on-wall-street-watches-2016-9?r=US&IR=T) I thought I would do a simple google search for watch hierarchy and see what came up.

This was the most popular result:










I was wondering what people's thoughts were on this pyramid? Surely IWC can't fall under 'entry level'?!


----------



## PC-Magician (Apr 29, 2013)

Personaly I think that is a load of cobblers, but we all have opinions.


----------



## andyclient (Aug 1, 2009)

As above , don't agree with 90 plus percent of that i'm afraid


----------



## Trigger (Sep 16, 2011)

Nonsense throughout. I would rather have a good quality Seiko than anything on echelon 1 and most of 2.


----------



## Mr Levity (Feb 24, 2013)

No Seiko, Grand Seiko, Credor ? On any level ?

Compiled by ignorant watch snobs methinks !


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Blimey, none of mine even made it onto the bottom row of the pyramid. I've never felt so worthless... 

:laughing2dw:


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

I agree with that in the large part...though I would swap a couple around..

I would move Ebel up a level...I bought one earlier this year and have to admit they aren't great at holding value but would put them alongside Tag.

IWC - I think that they actually have this wrong describing the brand as "well known" it is known by enthusiasts but the average guy on the street doesn't really know it and they do lose value because of it. They are entry level along with Omega but Omega are terribly well known and maybe hold value better? It depends on your understanding of entry level...as respected horology pieces I think they have it right. If you are just thinking about pricing you might move them...but in that case Lange would be above the top tier with Richard Mille...but its not just based on cost.

Cartier I used to put alongside Rolex...but some models held well (Square Galbee Santos) while other models plumetted (50p shape Santos, silver gilt Tank) etc... then they started scrapping models and releasing too much...but maybe the brand will come back to favour with their in house movements and smoothly advertised image.

I think this was probably drawn up by somebody like myself who has worked in pawnbroking or retailed secondhand watches and thus is attuned to brand perceptions within the market/trade. Many of the public don't acknowledge there is any sort of hierarchy at all and many won't admit some that they own being badly percieved (if so maybe they would have avoided) Perhaps thier brand perception is out of kilter with others and leads to questionable judgement.

We also have to allow that sometimes a dog of a brand releases a spectaculer watch that bucks the trends of the rest of the range... it muddies the water further...

This is in a fluid state too, and subject to personal interpretation. For instance some love Japanese watches and some like only Swiss... some Japanese (Grand Seiko) some are slow on the uptake as to how good they are and people are like marmite...but save a few great models in Seiko's line they aren't known to hold value well (with in the trade) even though they have cult following amongst the public.

Understanding that this diagram isn't meant maliciously take what you with from it.


----------



## dfswf (Jul 16, 2016)

That pyramid has more problems than a math book. Although you could MAYBE very loosely agree with the generalizations there are far too many variables to consider an entire brand by. And of course, there will be exceptions in each brand for individual watches to move up and down. Just where they put ALS will easily start riots here!!!

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## vadiro (Jul 21, 2016)

I think the whole hierarchy looks like made by snobs.

Anyway, it's very superficial to classify something by brand.

The Japanese ones are not even mentioned.


----------



## decraew (Aug 30, 2016)

I think the maker of the pyramid had the right basic idea. Yes, you can discuss the relative position of this or that brand, and yes it depends also on which exact type within a brand. Watches hold value based on how much they are wanted. For me it seems logical that the more expensive a watch is, the more it retains its value, but only IF said watch is a well-known brand.

I know from bitter experience that it is very hard to recuperate a decent percentage of the price of a watch if it's not a well-known brand. Second-hand stores will refuse to buy your watch if it's not part of a small group of brands including Omega, Rolex, Panerai, Patek ...


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

The heirarchy is not made by snobs even it reflects what snobs think.

What is better percieved between a Fiat and a BMW? I would say BMW but I would never own one. I drive a Fiat Coupe 20VT...faster than 95% of BMWs, better made than most (by Pininfarina who manufacture Ferrari too) and much cheaper. I am not a snob to recognise the public still thinks BMW is further up the hierarchy...if I denied this I would only be fooling myself. Why would the analogy be different for watches? I own watches from multiple different levels in this triangle but would have concerns about purchasing a number of brands further down. Nothing to do with snobbery but more to do with residual values and preference to get the best I can.

If my preference or means was to buy on the cheap I wouldn't assume that anyone who liked something more expensive thinking "a more prestigious brand is in fact more prestigious" is a snob. That to me sounds like sour grapes.


----------



## blu (Jul 31, 2016)

Aside from the many controversial elements in this that have already been highlighted, do people think its fair to rank Vacheron alongside Patek as top tier (i.e. the very best you can buy in the world). I've seen them on occasion at auctions having lost quite a bit of their value whereas Patek (naturally) always seems to hold/improve its value.


----------



## decraew (Aug 30, 2016)

Mr Levity said:


> No Seiko, Grand Seiko, Credor ? On any level ?
> 
> Compiled by ignorant watch snobs methinks !


 Ignorant watch snobs make up the biggest part of watch buyers (as an aside, a lot of them flock to Rolex, which spoiled the brand a bit for me).

Regarding Grand Seiko's. I love them. I would dearly love to own a Grand Seiko, but I know for certain that if I ever want to get rid of it (yes, the love for a watch can turn to indifference over time), it will be hard to do that quickly and at a decent price. There's just too little demand for Grand Seiko's, so the resale value is peanuts (except maybe in circles of connaisseurs). Witness also the total non-existence of fake Grand Seiko's (afaik).


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

decraew said:


> Ignorant watch snobs make up the biggest part of watch buyers (as an aside, a lot of them flock to Rolex, which spoiled the brand a bit for me).
> 
> Regarding Grand Seiko's. I love them. I would dearly love to own a Grand Seiko, but I know for certain that if I ever want to get rid of it (yes, the love for a watch can turn to indifference over time), it will be hard to do that quickly and at a decent price. There's just too little demand for Grand Seiko's, so the resale value is peanuts (except maybe in circles of connaisseurs). Witness also the total non-existence of fake Grand Seiko's (afaik).


 Though low supply in this country actually means you stand a good chance of a private sale since theres no real supply of GS here.

Vacheron do deserve their spot too IMO...as one of the holy trinity and with their history but again model dependant for value retention. I guess I would think that though given my Oversea's is the star of my collection.

If value retention was the entire story then Rolex would be number 1.


----------



## Ryan P (Sep 20, 2011)

blu said:


> ...... Surely IWC can't fall under 'entry level'?!


 & positioned below Bremont!!!!

No mention of Tudor???

R


----------



## brummie1875 (May 2, 2016)

Davey P said:


> Blimey, none of mine even made it onto the bottom row of the pyramid. I've never felt so worthless...
> 
> :laughing2dw:


 I don't think i even got to be inthe footings of the pyramid below you. 

But then as a beliver of " happiness eyes beholder" waffle. We all win in the end. :yahoo:


----------



## ajdh (Jul 24, 2016)

It's just one persons opinion, we could all draw a triangle of brands and they'd all be different. I'm sure I've seen the diagram before, quite a few years ago, which would account for Tudor not being listed.


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

Ingersoll and Ball on the same level?


----------



## it'salivejim (Jan 19, 2013)

No Vostok? It's the pyramid of 5hite


----------



## decraew (Aug 30, 2016)

it'salivejim said:


> Vostok?


 Who ??


----------



## deano1956 (Jan 27, 2016)

hi

you see its all about how the yanks perceive the hierarchy in a corporate environment if you read the accompanying article, that says it all really for me ! :laugh:

while VC is top 3 , it only makes it to V president level above associate ,and below director level watches and Md watch levels so you aint made it till you get your patek !

have nice day now :biggrin:

deano


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

deano1956 said:


> while VC is top 3 , it only makes it to V president level above associate ,and below director level watches and Md watch levels so you aint made it till you get your patek !
> 
> have nice day now :biggrin:
> 
> deano


 Certainly will.


----------



## RWP (Nov 8, 2015)

I'm a sub pyramid person.


----------



## deano1956 (Jan 27, 2016)

RWP said:


> I'm a sub pyramid person.


 na rodger,

I like to think of you as the foundations of the pyramid, good & sold base . :biggrin:

deano


----------



## RWP (Nov 8, 2015)

deano1956 said:


> na rodger,
> 
> I like to think of you as the foundations of the pyramid, good & sold base . :biggrin:
> 
> deano


 You're a gentleman Sir [IMG alt="hoto:" data-emoticon=""]http://xflive.thewatchforum.co.uk/uploads/monthly_2015_06/photo.gif.498133fde94d8fdfbe6e48958a82e76c.gif[/IMG]


----------



## Caller. (Dec 8, 2013)

There are too many high end watch brands missing for it to make any sense and too much deference made to the so called top 3, which could easily be added to with some of those missing brands.

And several brands could easily fit into more than one category, who make very level pieces, costing many thousands of pounds, but also produce what could be classed as high street watches. So looking at that list, I would include Rolex, Chopard and Carl F Bucherer in that catergoty at the very least - oh wait, Bucherer is missing altogether!

A good talking point, but that's about all and what's wrong with Japanese Seiko movements?


----------



## kanab22 (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't see Slazenger on the pyramid?!?!?!


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

kanab22 said:


> I don't see Slazenger on the pyramid?!?!?!


 There you go mate, I've fixed that for you:










You're welcome! :laughing2dw:


----------



## Montybaber (Nov 5, 2015)

I have never been a fan of being told what to like and what is better than something else, surely a lot of the fun is finding out what floats your boat


----------



## ZenArcade (Aug 17, 2016)

blu said:


> After reading a rather ridiculous article on the watch hierarchy of wall street (can be accessed here: http://uk.businessinsider.com/gselevator-on-wall-street-watches-2016-9?r=US&IR=T) I thought I would do a simple google search for watch hierarchy and see what came up.
> 
> This was the most popular result:
> 
> ...


 Its not just factually incorrect its utter garbage! Reading these things I cant help but suspect they were compiled by the CEO of certain companies to project an image of themselves that just doesn't exist. FC DONT use Chinese movements mostly or anything else or Japanese for that matter. They also have their own in house movements. I am not aware of Ebel or U Boat using Chinese movements or Japanese for that matter same goes for Raymond Weil. Like them or not writing something that's just factually untrue is plain wrong.

They are placing Montblanc a pen manufacture above FC a watch manufacture? Based on what they have a 7k in house movement that drops like a lead balloon tied to a brick on resale? They do make great watches no doubt but it depends entirely upon what you are buying to if it holds value or not. Stowa don't hold value, since when? You will lose very little on resale on a Stowa bought retail try that with a Longines with complications and get ready for a deep bath. Breitling and Tag? Good watches but great?

IWC are a luxury watch? One line up with a 7k in house movement and the rest off the shelf "bespoke assembled for them" movements. Cartier above Omega and along side Blancpain are you having a laugh? Please can the guy who wrote this buy a in house Cartier at retail and then try and sell it and achieve even remotely close to what he paid for it. Now try that with a Panerai.

Ulysse Nardin hold their value well??? Who is writing this? Hoblot is even up there are they serious?

I think most of these things are written more in hope than anything else.


----------



## mitadoc (Sep 25, 2010)

Silly pyramid.


----------



## Krispy (Nov 7, 2010)

Heuer don't really hold their value???


----------



## ZenArcade (Aug 17, 2016)

I do love how "Hold their value" Is a significant factor in how good a watch manufacture is. Not the movement, not the build and quality, not the time and effort put into making the watch, not the skill of the watch manufacture but "Hold their value" "World recognized" Tell you what, would the producer of this pyramid please buy a FP Journe and I will buy one of those nice "World recognized, hold their value well" Cartier watches and we can do a swap. I will gladly take that piece of junk unknown Journe off him and not charge him a penny for it.

This is what really sickens me about the modern watch market, there are plenty of high end watchmakers out there who get precious little recognition while people go on feeding frenzies for the latest 48mm diver/dress/aviator then throw it up for sale in 6 months time for the next one.


----------



## WRENCH (Jun 20, 2016)

ZenArcade said:


> I do love how "Hold their value" Is a significant factor in how good a watch manufacture is. Not the movement, not the build and quality, not the time and effort put into making the watch, not the skill of the watch manufacture but "Hold their value" "World recognized" Tell you what, would the producer of this pyramid please buy a FP Journe and I will buy one of those nice "World recognized, hold their value well" Cartier watches and we can do a swap. I will gladly take that piece of junk unknown Journe off him and not charge him a penny for it.
> 
> This is what really sickens me about the modern watch market, there are plenty of high end watchmakers out there who get precious little recognition while people go on feeding frenzies for the latest 48mm diver/dress/aviator then throw it up for sale in 6 months time for the next one.


 Try reading some of the reviews in GQ and the likes. Way too much "look at me" and emperors new clothes syndrome. I just ignore it. I would imagine a Vostok would be more exclusive on Wall Street.


----------



## Andern (Oct 28, 2015)

its all in the context, it could have been me that made that pyramid and in which case it about as valuable as the paper its not even written on :laugh:


----------



## kanab22 (Mar 21, 2011)

Davey P said:


> There you go mate, I've fixed that for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thank goodness for that. I reckon you won't lose much reselling a Slazenger.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Daveyboyz said:


> The heirarchy is not made by snobs even it reflects what snobs think.
> 
> What is better percieved between a Fiat and a BMW? I would say BMW but I would never own one. I drive a Fiat Coupe 20VT...faster than 95% of BMWs, better made than most (by Pininfarina who manufacture Ferrari too) and much cheaper.


 Pininfarina is an Italian design and engineering house who amongst other things occasionally knock out a "motor show" special for various manufacturers now and then. They don't manufacture Fiats or Ferraris.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pininfarina

And call me a snob if you like whilst your Fiat coupe isn't too shabby it's no Ferrari or BMW for that matter and yes I've driven a couple of Fiats over the years.

:laugh: :laugh:

On the watches though you're pretty much spot on.

:teethsmile:


----------



## Daveyboyz (Mar 9, 2016)

BondandBigM said:


> They don't manufacture Fiats or Ferraris.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pininfarina
> 
> And call me a snob if you like whilst your Fiat coupe isn't too shabby it's no Ferrari or BMW for that matter and yes I've driven a couple of Fiats over the year.


 You say they don't manufacture fiats or Ferraris and then supply a link to show that they "Pininfarina designs, manufactures, assembles, and tests prototypes and production vehicles under contract for other automakers." With a list showing the Fiat Coupe and various other cars including Maserati and Ferrari and a list of dates.

I agree it is not a Ferrari...but it illustrates my point...Fiat is well under German cars in any car manufacture hierarchy...I can admit this even if I drive one.

Ebel is arguably near the bottom of the watch heirachy even if I own one.


----------



## Pip (Jul 19, 2016)

I have corrected the pyramid.


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Pip said:


> I have corrected the pyramid.


 Er, I think you'll find the Pulsar should be at the top... unless you don't want me to send it to you, obviously............. 

:laugh:


----------



## Pip (Jul 19, 2016)

Davey P said:


> Er, I think you'll find the Pulsar should be at the top... unless you don't want me to send it to you, obviously.............
> 
> :laugh:


 Quite right of course!


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

Now it is correct (and about as useful as the original pyramid...) :thumbsup:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Daveyboyz said:


> You say they don't manufacture fiats or Ferraris and then supply a link to show that they "Pininfarina designs, manufactures, assembles, and tests prototypes and production vehicles under contract for other automakers." With a list showing the Fiat Coupe and various other cars including Maserati and Ferrari and a list of dates.
> 
> I agree it is not a Ferrari...but it illustrates my point...Fiat is well under German cars in any car manufacture hierarchy...I can admit this even if I drive one.
> 
> Ebel is arguably near the bottom of the watch heirachy even if I own one.


 I stand corrected it was assembled by Pininfarina but was an in house Fiat design based on the Tipo floorpan and only the interior was designed.

But assembled and wholly manufactured aren't quite the same.

Meanwhile back in the real world of watches.

http://wornandwound.com/apple-second-rolex-worldwide-sales-mean/

:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Biker (Mar 9, 2013)

The OP is... :bullshitter:


----------



## andyclient (Aug 1, 2009)

BondandBigM said:


> I stand corrected it was assembled by Pininfarina but was an in house Fiat design based on the Tipo floorpan and only the interior was designed.
> 
> But assembled and wholly manufactured aren't quite the same.
> 
> ...


 Fossil in 3rd place I was a bit surprised by


----------



## Davey P (Sep 9, 2010)

andyclient said:


> Fossil in 3rd place I was a bit surprised by


 Get in! :yahoo:


----------



## Nigelp (Jan 28, 2015)

Looks a reasonable attempt of combining the objective with the subjective. Nope never going to work is it? Though it is still a reasonable brush stroke sweep if a bit stereotypical. At least they haven't said Rolex are mid-range now that would never do would it when you can only stretch to a Longines :laugh:


----------



## blu (Jul 31, 2016)

deano1956 said:


> hi
> 
> you see its all about how the yanks perceive the hierarchy in a corporate environment if you read the accompanying article, that says it all really for me ! :laugh:
> 
> ...





Daveyboyz said:


> Though low supply in this country actually means you stand a good chance of a private sale since theres no real supply of GS here.
> 
> Vacheron do deserve their spot too IMO...as one of the holy trinity and with their history but again model dependant for value retention. I guess I would think that though given my Oversea's is the star of my collection.
> 
> If value retention was the entire story then Rolex would be number 1.


 True but whoever made the pyramid explicitly makes reference to 'holding value' in each of the tiers so I thought it was strange to equate VC with Patek on that front.


----------



## blu (Jul 31, 2016)

Biker said:


> The OP is... :bullshitter:


 Did you even read the post, I didn't make the pyramid - if anything I was questioning it.


----------



## reggie747 (Sep 10, 2013)

What a load of


----------



## martinzx (Aug 29, 2010)

BondandBigM said:


> Pininfarina is an Italian design and engineering house who amongst other things occasionally knock out a "motor show" special for various manufacturers now and then. They don't manufacture Fiats or Ferraris.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pininfarina
> 
> ...


 Designed a nice Alfa also  ....


----------



## RTM Boy (Jun 1, 2011)

I do like an Alfa...

But wrt the OP, the big problem with this topic every time it comes up is that opinion is subjective and is not fact (something that the so-called 'evidence' that House of Commons Select Committees publish as fact would do well to remember).

Sorry, off on another tangent...

I try to think about watch brands in terms of awareness amongst the general public and in terms of quality of products, and not try to overlay one onto the other. High levels of general awareness will stretch across the whole range of price points and levels of quality from Casio to Timex to Seiko, to Tissot, across fashion brands like Armarni and Michael Kors, all the way up to Tag, Omega and Rolex (with their simply huge marketing budgets). Because these brands are generally better known many retailers find them easier to sell on secondhand, but not without depreciation. No watch is guaranteed to keep its value. Anything is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it at that time.

Amongst the better informed and jewellry trade I would say that the ideal combination of quality, brand value and status and lowest depreciation is probably held by PP overall, but it doesn't mean that the general public holds PP in the same somehat showy golden light as Rolex.

Another factor is that fashions change constantly. In the same way that high quality two-century-old 'brown' furniture that would have sold for £thousands 25 years ago can barely be given away today, watch brands rise and fall in popularity both in absolute terms and relative to eachother over time, but again that doesn't necesarily reflect the quality of the watch.

In the end, it's all subjective so any ranking is only ever going to be personal.


----------



## Biker (Mar 9, 2013)

blu said:


> Did you even read the post, I didn't make the pyramid - if anything I was questioning it.


 Yes apologies, I didn't mean the actual post, I meant the Pyramid


----------

