# "quality" Brands Available Today?



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

Hi,

I've just had two bad experiences trying to let my missus buy me a nice watch, in both cases they were what I would have thought of a pretty good brand names although only in the Â£100 or so price range. I'm not sure its appropriate to name names here, but I'll do so if that's OK.

(1) Bought new, and started losing time within a few days. Retailer insisted on changing the battery, at which point I should clearly have smelt a rat. Problem recurred and this time they sent it back to the maker's service dept to be fixed, checked and properly sealed. When I got it back it ran OK for a while, then lost 4min over one weekend. We gave it up as a bad job, and the missus returned it for refund.

(2) Bought 2nd hand off Ebay and seemed fine until the battery needed replacing. I decided to return to the manufacturer's service dept, they advised a full service was required at a cost of around 60% of new replacement cost. After the service it's not run reliably, its been back to them twice and now they claim not to be able to find fault. They refunded the service charge but we're still out of pocket for the postage charges and of course I don't have a watch.

Who would like to name a reputable maker, who makes a reliable and accurate watch but more importantly has decent back-up and a helpful attitude if things go wrong? My two problems were really problems of service, rather than of product because I know things go wrong now and again, but in those two cases the makers appeared unable or unwilling to fix them

Currently I'm wearing a Â£12.99 watch which keeps dead accurate time, but looks and feels cheap and nasty. However I'm wary of splashing out more on something that may just cause me as much grief as the two "brand names" I've just experienced.

Thanks in advance, Tony S


----------



## - Baz - (Jul 13, 2008)

Sorry to hear about your experiences... The obvious choice is Roy - check out his stuff from the link above. If you could give us some better idea of the type of watch you're after and how much you want to pay, you'll be inundated with suggestions... ie dress/sport, size, dial colour etc, etc. The more info we have the better.


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

Thanks Baz. On consideration I think I should name the two brands, they were Accurist and Tissot. Hopefully a moderator will delete this post if that's out of order.

I guess its unreasonable to ask for alternative recommendations, while not disclosing the two brands I want to avoid! Since it was a failure of service rather than product, I suppose the whole Swatch Group is a no-go area.

Tony S


----------



## chris l (Aug 5, 2005)

aesmith said:


> Thanks Baz. On consideration I think I should name the two brands, they were Accurist and Tissot. Hopefully a moderator will delete this post if that's out of order.
> 
> I guess its unreasonable to ask for alternative recommendations, while not disclosing the two brands I want to avoid! Since it was a failure of service rather than product, I suppose the whole Swatch Group is a no-go area.
> 
> Tony S


On the contrary.. Swatch make, IMHO, some excellent watches!

Check out Swatch Irony chronographs; good watches at very good prices...


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

Regarding my preferences, I suppose I would consider a price range of up to Â£300, but I'd need to feel happy that I was getting value in terms of technical quality rather than just looks. Up at that price I would start to be worried that I might damage or lose something valuable, although my previous main watch cost me Â£51 which was quite a lot for a student in 1980 and that lasted until I lost it a few years ago.

Aside from that, I like plain simple styling, clear face with easy to read hands, round face, sweep second hand, and slim enough to wear comfortably under shirt cuffs. It needs to be accurate enough that I don't have to keep resetting the time, and I guess that means quartz.

This example "ticks all the boxes" except for the brand, and the fact that its not quartz.










Black face is nice, but not a "must have" however I have to say the only problem with my now defunct Tissot was that it had silver hands over a silver face so sometimes it could have been clearer. It ironic that when I look at pictures, those I like best all seem to be Tissot!

Thanks again, Tony S


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

chris l said:


> On the contrary.. Swatch make, IMHO, some excellent watches!


I have no reason to doubt that at all. The problem for me is that I've been in dispute with their service department for nearly six months without a resolution. The thought of buying something else, then finding I need to deal with the same people, is very off-putting. I expect to keep my watch(es) a long time, so it will need service at some stage.

I fully understand that a dud example can come very occasionally from any supplier, but what matters is how quickly and willingly the supplier sorts things out.

Tony S


----------



## zed4130 (Jun 25, 2009)

I must say i have a accurist chronograph that worls perfect and keep very good time, it cost about Â£100 about 6years ago h, although i have cheap watches that have worked well , my Â£14 slava auto from hong kong is a good example of a good cheap mechanical watch, i suppose sometimes it is the you get what you pay for saying but not in all cases, sorry you have had problems, roys watches are amazing so should be next stop, :rltb:

paul

Â£14 posted slava,










my accurist my partner got me 6 years ago, works very well,


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

how about seiko? or as mentioned, roys rlt watches???

a seiko skx007 from japan will cost you around Â£110-Â£120










one of these at around Â£180










an orsa will set you back around Â£200










the seiko movements in these two (and the miyota in the orsa) are bullet proof, and are easily serviced and for very little money


----------



## zed4130 (Jun 25, 2009)

mrteatime said:


> how about seiko? or as mentioned, roys rlt watches???
> 
> a seiko skx007 from japan will cost you around Â£110-Â£120
> 
> ...


dont know how i forgot about seiko shawn lol as they are the best watches in the world, bias of course 

paul


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

zed4130 said:


> mrteatime said:
> 
> 
> > how about seiko? or as mentioned, roys rlt watches???
> ...


you cant beat a seiko paul


----------



## zed4130 (Jun 25, 2009)

mrteatime said:


> zed4130 said:
> 
> 
> > mrteatime said:
> ...


lol cant help this


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

funnily enough.....the fav watch was this one...



















i regretted flipping this more or less straight away.....the only thing that was original on this was the case.....everything else had been changed, including the crown........

even with all the replacement parts (inc a new movt) and including the actual purchase of the original watch it still only stood me at Â£260.....


----------



## zed4130 (Jun 25, 2009)

mrteatime said:


> funnily enough.....the fav watch was this one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


love the face on that shawn,


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

mrteatime said:


> you cant beat a seiko paul


I certainly can't argue with Seiko, that was my main watch until I finally lost it. The modern ones look all a bit bulky though.


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

Seiko all the way, I reckon. Like you, I'm not keen on the modern styling but you can pick up really nice second-hand Seikos quite cheaply all over the place. If quartz is what you want, then so be it... only first I would spend a while identifying why you want that level of accuracy - in any case, even quartz isn't so accurate that you won't have to reset it from time to time. And all that battery changing malarky would drive me nuts. For me, a nice, slim, classic, automatic Seiko may be your best bet.

Oh - and you could spend the change on a lavish night out with Mrs Smith. Hth.


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

squareleg said:


> If quartz is what you want, then so be it... only first I would spend a while identifying why you want that level of accuracy - in any case, even quartz isn't so accurate that you won't have to reset it from time to time. And all that battery changing malarky would drive me nuts.


I've been thinking that over after seeing all these very attractive watches with mechanical movements. I just think that 5-10 seconds a day is too much, and would probably mean I'd feel the need to reset it every week. Maybe I've just got used to quartz long-term accuracy that means I only need to reset at the BST<->GMT change-overs. Maybe its not rational but it feels like a backward step to give that up.

I've not thought of automatic, but out of interest how long do they typically run if left alone off the wrist? I'm imagining for example if I went off sailing for a weekend wearing my waterproof Casio, would I come back to find the good watch stopped and therefore needing to be reset again? (Of course if I had a waterproof automatic then that wouldn't arise)

Regarding other makes what do the panel think of these ..

- Citizen (very slim, solar power so no battery changing)

- Rotary (lifetime guarantee, decent water resistance even in their "dress" watches)?

- Dreyfuss as recommended by one retailer

A colleague strongly recommends Omega, and has the 30 year old watch in daily use to back that up. However they're part of the Swatch Group now, and while I can shrug off the eighty quid or so wasted in my Tissot experience, it would be no joke to experience the same level of service on a seriously expensive watch.


----------



## squareleg (Mar 6, 2008)

Well, if it's any help, I arrived around these parts some 18 months ago, researching the 'perfect watch' and quickly discovered (surprise, surprise) that there's no such thing. But the great thing about this place is that you can try stuff out and, if it doesn't suit, sell it on for virtually no loss... so that would be my tip. Hang around, chat a bit, nail down what it is you're looking for, buy something from the sales section and give it a spin. It's a surprising amount of fun... though it can get a bit addictive.


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

Cheers, I see what you mean. There's some sense in giving up on the High Quality / High Price / High Expectations idea. Its too big a disappointment when it turns out that high price can still mean poor quality.


----------



## AlexC1981 (Jul 26, 2009)

Hmm.... All the watches suggested on the first page were nothing like the sort of watch aesmith said he wanted. :lol: Everyone here looks for any reason to post photos of their watches. (I'm no exception)

The only quartz watch I have at the moment is a £30 Sekonda I bought new on ebay a couple of years ago. It's been fine. Does its job keeping excellent time.

Have a look at this Sekonda on ebay. Item 250477950464. Smart and if it's anything like mine will be good value/reliable/accurate, but the Sekonda name doesnt carry much weight.

I cant seem to post the ebay pic up for some reason.

I'd suggest you get a perhaps an old handwound watch too, just for fun. Winding a watch up before you go to bed and checking the time really isnt as much as a bother as you might think.


----------



## aesmith (Aug 7, 2009)

AlexC1981 said:


> I'd suggest you get a perhaps an old handwound watch too, just for fun.


Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of mechanical stuff. I have an heirloom mechanical watch that I'm hoping to get into a usable condition. (See my other thread) http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=45291

I also have a 400 day clock that (alas) is still packed since we moved until I sort out a stable shelf for it.

Thanks for all the comments, Tony S


----------

