Are low-to-mid price genuine watches a poor value?

[mezzanine]

I think as recently as a few years ago, lower priced genuine luxury watches were a cool niche in the watch world. Now, with the increase in the quality and availability of replicas of these watches, are the genuines less of a value?

For example, it would be a difficult case to make that the difference between the gen and rep Breitling SFSO or Heritage is worth the price difference. The genuines use the same basic movement as the rep, and the differences in appearance are hard to spot. If both watches have the same basic movement, where is the justification if you are aware of both watches?

The standard "gens hold their value" argument is not really what I'm looking for. In this case, the value of not having $2000 tied up in a watch exceeds the value of being able to sell it with a minimal loss, IMO.

If it's about the stability of the value of the genuine, put the money you'd save into an index fund and you'll be better off.

I believe that the newer reps are making the low-to-mid end niche of genuine watches a poor value. The uPO is another example, especially when you start talking about modded pieces with SL and double AR.

Most people say that the price of the genuine doesn't enter into their decision process with rep choices. I believe that this is going to change as this pattern continues...

[b16a2]

I think that these new great replicas make buying gens more futile for people who wouldn't buy gens or who aren't in the position to by gens. However, I think that people who prefer gens or are in more of a postiion to buy them, replicas dont make them less valuable per se, but they would select their gens/reps according to taste and what watches they really want the gens of.

As for the price of the rep/gen, I feel that with the increase in prices, it has become more of a consideration when buying a replica. I would certrainly buy the asian movement SOSF over the swiss now, due to the price of the swiss version. The ability to poick up a gen SOSF for

[anton]

...For example, it would be a difficult case to make that the difference between the gen and rep Breitling SFSO or Heritage is worth the price difference. The genuines use the same basic movement as the rep, and the differences in appearance are hard to spot. If both watches have the same basic movement, where is the justification if you are aware of both watches?...

Even though the differences may be hard to spot, the apparent difference between gen and rep is what is on the inside, rather than on the outside.

Sure, the rep SFSO or Heritage may appear to be very well made, will it survive the same strengths that the gen is used to test?

The movements in both watches may be the same, but that is simply comparing apples and oranges. You can't say that both watches contain a $50 movement.

How about the materials used? Can it be said that both watches use the same materials? The same quality of steel? The same oils? The same finishing?

I still consider low-to-mid price gens to be a value, but only when it is purchased second hand. Comparing the values to what you can get for a rep is something that cannot be justified favorably for a rep.

[iceberg1459]

I would buy a gen which cant be repped...

[mezzanine]

I would buy a gen that hasn't been repped as well, with Sinn being the best example of a good value that has remained strong with the lack of reps to cut into their appeal.

I agree that there are differences between the finish of gens and reps, even with the newer really good ones, but the question is whether those minor differences justify the cost difference. If we're talking about the SFSO, as an example, then we have a watch that is available in the used market for $1200 or so. You could reverse the view point and suggest that the rep is a poor value, when it's so expensive in relation to the gen.

But the argument that the quality difference in terms of tolerances, etc.. are going to be significantly different is the whole point- they're not that different. They used to be, but the whole argument being made is that those qualitative and quantitative differences are smaller than ever before.

When we're talking about a basic ETA movement in a divers case, the functional differences are negligible.

I could even see with a brand like Sinn that is really a serious tool watch might be hard to get right, in terms of the metal being used, etc... but not so much with watches that are from major brands (not named Rolex) and are part of their modern line-up being released within a competitive niche and priced accordingly.

[owdeguy]

Gens have been good to me over the years. I think to hedge value loss you have to be willing to buy pre-owned, and be selective. I would consider $700 to be low priced, and thats about what I paid for my Omega Schumacher back in 2002ish. I bought this because I liked Schuey and Ferrari, but also because I believed it would be a good long term investment watch. He was on his 4th championship win, so he was going to go down in the books as a legend which he did. That watch today is worth about 1500 with its strap, box and papers. So I've doubled my money on it. Now if I had gone out willy nilly buying I probably wouldn't have fared so well, but I liked Omegas and they were a watch that were selling undervalued at the time IMO.

My Breitling was purchased new in 2000 for about 60% back from list which was 4100ish I think. I got lucky on some crazy deals available back then and picked it up, always hoping it wouldn't lose much value. its probably worth about 80% of what I paid for it, so while it hasn't made me money, it hasn't lost much in value. Its all about being selective in what you pick. I didn't even pick the popular brands like PAMs and rolex as they don't suit my style.

And yes, I'm glad neither of my watches were ever replicated, I'd personally stay away from the buying a gen in a version where a super rep exists...

Edited March 31, 2008 by owdeguy

[Dave123]

I think the question should be 'is it worth buying a rep of a low to mid range gen?'......

Its a matter of if you want to be able to say to someone that might ask,that it is a gen.....

Or if you want to lie,and are comfortable doing so...

Or if you want to say you are a rep buyer,otherwise known as a person that buys fakes because they can't afford the gen,even though the gen is not expensive...

What you feel comfortable with dictates if you spend the money on the gen or not....

[iceberg1459]

I would say save your money and buy a 1 gen with in-house movt. or something special you find and use it your lifelong. Like iwc, panerai, patek with in house movt. i personally prefer with open caseback.

[TeeJay]

Even though the differences may be hard to spot, the apparent difference between gen and rep is what is on the inside, rather than on the outside.

Sure, the rep SFSO or Heritage may appear to be very well made, will it survive the same strengths that the gen is used to test?

The movements in both watches may be the same, but that is simply comparing apples and oranges. You can't say that both watches contain a $50 movement.

How about the materials used? Can it be said that both watches use the same materials? The same quality of steel? The same oils? The same finishing?

I still consider low-to-mid price gens to be a value, but only when it is purchased second hand. Comparing the values to what you can get for a rep is something that cannot be justified favorably for a rep.

This is a very true point, but, not one which will be a factor for many people. Afterall, there aren't many folks whos dive watches see depths any deeper than their pool. With that kind of use being prevelent, are the same standards of resistance as the gen has, really important?

I think the question should be 'is it worth buying a rep of a low to mid range gen?'......

Its a matter of if you want to be able to say to someone that might ask,that it is a gen.....

Or if you want to lie,and are comfortable doing so...

Or if you want to say you are a rep buyer,otherwise known as a person that buys fakes because they can't afford the gen,even though the gen is not expensive...

What you feel comfortable with dictates if you spend the money on the gen or not....

Who says people by fakes because they can't afford the gen? Many of the members here either own gens, or are in a position to afford them, but choose to buy reps for other (and very varied) reasons

[noslen]

A few years ago I owned a gen SD. Bought it with my bonus from my first proper job out of university. Great watch, I'd been a fan of Rolex (and especially the SD) since a teenager but could never afford one, and saw this as a right of passage. However walking around with

[FxrAndy]

I just bought a gen, i spent all my savings that i had been saving since 94, i am not a rich person, However i could afford to buy this just once, I could have had any number of breitlings, omegas but i was put off by the fact the rep is soooo good. Ok i bougt and Ingy, and the rep is just as good but the difference is inside, The breitling cal 17 is just a well put together eta 2824, the coaxial in the omega is a well made modified 2892, i could have a number of these but i went for the ingy because I like the way it looks and what is inside. And you know what i have had the rep on my wrist all bar a few hours since i got the gen. At the end of the day i dont think the lower end gens (ETA based) are worth the money.

[Cats]

i have several gen watches. the 2 most expensive are the Ebel 1911 senior 18K and the

Tissot 18K handwound.

A friend of mine which appears to be an excelent watchsmith showed me that the same ETA automatic movement comes in 4 different variantions in terms of finish and accuracy. So it's not true that the reps have the same "basic" movements as the gen. And then we forget all the application made to this movement inhouse.

Low priced gen are in most cases more reliable and for instance my seiko gen of 150 euro's is waterresistant up to 100 metres.

Please show me witch rep gives me those features out of the box.

As for the remark that gen keep their value i can't says this is the case with the Ebel.

I bought it 8-10 years ago for 5K euro's and if i trade it in it will bring me max. 2K of i'm lucky.

Carpe Diem

Cats

[freddy333]

I think that if you can tell the difference (and you care), spending extra for the gen makes sense. In those cases where you cannot, then a good argument can be made against it. But some may also want to factor in resale value & serviceability since reps tend to require more frequent servicing (& the pool of repair options is smaller for reps) & have little or no (legal) resale value.

[TeeJay]

i have several gen watches. the 2 most expensive are the Ebel 1911 senior 18K and the

Tissot 18K handwound.

A friend of mine which appears to be an excelent watchsmith showed me that the same ETA automatic movement comes in 4 different variantions in terms of finish and accuracy. So it's not true that the reps have the same "basic" movements as the gen. And then we forget all the application made to this movement inhouse.

Low priced gen are in most cases more reliable and for instance my seiko gen of 150 euro's is waterresistant up to 100 metres.

Please show me witch rep gives me those features out of the box.

As for the remark that gen keep their value i can't says this is the case with the Ebel.

I bought it 8-10 years ago for 5K euro's and if i trade it in it will bring me max. 2K of i'm lucky.

Carpe Diem

Cats

Out of curiousity, have you actually dived to 100m with the Seiko, or just going by the stated rating? The only reason I ask, is that I have seen a photo on forum before of a gen Seiko, which had condensation under the crystal.

Although I have not dived to any depths with it, and bearing in mind that wr is measured as static pressure, my 111h, has withstood heavy swimming against both natural tides, and artifical wave machines, with no hint of leaking, and that was with the back secured only by the pressure of thumbs in rubber gloves... If a watch fails at deeper depths, fair enough, but, as I mentioned above, most people's watches aren't going to go deeper than the bottom of their pool

[FxrAndy]

i have several gen watches. the 2 most expensive are the Ebel 1911 senior 18K and the

Tissot 18K handwound.

A friend of mine which appears to be an excelent watchsmith showed me that the same ETA automatic movement comes in 4 different variantions in terms of finish and accuracy. So it's not true that the reps have the same "basic" movements as the gen. And then we forget all the application made to this movement inhouse.

Low priced gen are in most cases more reliable and for instance my seiko gen of 150 euro's is waterresistant up to 100 metres.

Please show me witch rep gives me those features out of the box.

As for the remark that gen keep their value i can't says this is the case with the Ebel.

I bought it 8-10 years ago for 5K euro's and if i trade it in it will bring me max. 2K of i'm lucky.

Carpe Diem

Cats

Cats maybe you should read this post when the grades of eta movements were disscussed.

[PAMman]

I have a collection of predominantly genuine watches, all bought used but mint / near mint condition at as low a price as I can. These include 2 Panerai (005 & 116), 4 Omega (black SM300, Speedy Pro, 'RAF' Dynamic & vintage Seamaster), Tudor chrono, B&R03-94, Zenith, Certina DS3 and others. With the exception of the Zenith and the vintage Seamaster none of these have in-house movements, but they are all currently worth at least as much as I paid because I bought carefully and have looked after them. I know that I could recoup all my outlay and likely make a modest profit overall. For example I bought an unworn, 2 month old Speedy Pro for

Edited March 31, 2008 by PAMman

[mezzanine]

I believe that certain reps have got to a point where their quality is so close to the genuine that it really makes buying the real thing a questionable value. I think it's a recent development. Two years ago, I do not think you could make this claim. The reps were simply not good enough, and the watches in the price range we're talking about are usually especially good values in the gen world.

If you look at the watches being released in the $300+ range, most of them make their authentic counterpart obsolete, IMO.

No way would I consider a genuine watch where there was a rep alternative as good as some of them are now. The exciting thing is that they're getting better at doing the higher priced watches now, like the HBB and the Dewitt.

[PAMman]

I believe that certain reps have got to a point where their quality is so close to the genuine that it really makes buying the real thing a questionable value.

Yes, I think that the SOSF is probably the best example of this and the 2892A2 & 2893 Panerai 27 & 29 are other potential candidates.

[Dave123]

This is a very true point, but, not one which will be a factor for many people. Afterall, there aren't many folks whos dive watches see depths any deeper than their pool. With that kind of use being prevelent, are the same standards of resistance as the gen has, really important?

Who says people by fakes because they can't afford the gen? Many of the members here either own gens, or are in a position to afford them, but choose to buy reps for other (and very varied) reasons

Hello Teejay,

I'm not saying that is my opinion,i'm saying that is the common opinion of people outside of this 'hobby'....so telling a person that thinks that way,that you own a knock off of a gen that is cheap anyway,wouldn't look good.....

At least if its a rep of a watch in the 10's of thousands,its more understandable as to why you would go the rep route.....to the outsider i am talking about.

[TeeJay]

Hello Teejay,

I'm not saying that is my opinion,i'm saying that is the common opinion of people outside of this 'hobby'....so telling a person that thinks that way,that you own a knock off of a gen that is cheap anyway,wouldn't look good.....

At least if its a rep of a watch in the 10's of thousands,its more understandable as to why you would go the rep route.....to the outsider i am talking about.

That's fair enough if it wasn't your own opinion, although I have to admit, beyond Rolex, the majority of people don't tend to question other brands, and, with some, such as Panerai, I've found, that when people are told what the gens would actually cost, they've all said "For a watch?! That's crazy!" To be honest, I don't think that there's the 'stigma' of reps (at least, decent quality watches, and less well-known brands) that there used to be.

[Edit for spelling]

[anton]

I believe that certain reps have got to a point where their quality is so close to the genuine that it really makes buying the real thing a questionable value. I think it's a recent development. Two years ago, I do not think you could make this claim. The reps were simply not good enough, and the watches in the price range we're talking about are usually especially good values in the gen world.

If you look at the watches being released in the $300+ range, most of them make their authentic counterpart obsolete, IMO.

No way would I consider a genuine watch where there was a rep alternative as good as some of them are now. The exciting thing is that they're getting better at doing the higher priced watches now, like the HBB and the Dewitt.

I'll concede to the general consensus is that most people don't care or it does not matter to them what is on the inside, so one could say that the low-to-mid priced gens could hold a poor preceived value to their rep counterparts.

But when you take value into considersation, you must consider all factors in order to make a fair comparison. Proponents of buying reps like to use HBBs as a case example where buying the rep is a "better value". I mean, it's not such a bad idea to believe that you are getting $8,000 worth of watch for all of $350 right?

[archibald]

Depends on the individual watch:

Today some guy is going to walk into a jewelry store and plunk down $2800 for a PO and think he got a good deal. Any UPO owner knows he didn't. But the other day some guy picked up a used JLC master hometime for $2800 on TZ: Manufacture movement, near-Patek fit and finish, a rock bottom resale value of say $2000. What rep can you get for $800 that even comes close, quality-wise?

If by low cost gen's you mean Seiko's, Hamiltons's, etc. a good rep of a high end watch is always a better deal in every respect from fit and finish to resale value to brand cachet and on down the list. Unless a warranty is the deciding factor of your watch purchases, they just don't compare to the best reps.

[PAMman]

Depends on the individual watch:

Today some guy is going to walk into a jewelry store and plunk down $2800 for a PO and think he got a good deal. Any UPO owner knows he didn't. But the other day some guy picked up a used JLC master hometime for $2800 on TZ: Manufacture movement, near-Patek fit and finish, a rock bottom resale value of say $2000. What rep can you get for $800 that even comes close, quality-wise?

If by low cost gen's you mean Seiko's, Hamiltons's, etc. a good rep of a high end watch is always a better deal in every respect from fit and finish to resale value to brand cachet and on down the list. Unless a warranty is the deciding factor of your watch purchases, they just don't compare to the best reps.

Agree with the comments on the JLC but I cannot agree that 'a good rep of a high end watch is always a better deal in every respect from fit and finish to resale value' when compared to Seiko or Hamilton etc. The fit and finish of a Seiko will be better than the best rep. A Seiko is much less likely to strip threads on the crown or tube than the best rep for example and, depending on the model, if bought used will hold its value fairly well thereafter.

In my experience a rep Swiss 6497 Panerai carefully built using a Jimmy Fu case and the best rep parts is the closest rep to the gen in terms of quality, function, fit and finish. I accept that there are visual flaws but that's not the point here. The case can be sealed to gen spec, there are no crown threads to strip, the movement can be to gen spec and finish for the older models (where you use the CdG version). These can be visually enhanced by using gen parts but then we are straying into the franken / gen territory.

[b16a2]

Im not so sure, there aren't huge boundaries between my gens and my reps!

[archibald]

Agree with the comments on the JLC but I cannot agree that 'a good rep of a high end watch is always a better deal in every respect from fit and finish to resale value' when compared to Seiko or Hamilton etc. The fit and finish of a Seiko will be better than the best rep. A Seiko is much less likely to strip threads on the crown or tube than the best rep for example and, depending on the model, if bought used will hold its value fairly well thereafter.

In my experience a rep Swiss 6497 Panerai carefully built using a Jimmy Fu case and the best rep parts is the closest rep to the gen in terms of quality, function, fit and finish. I accept that there are visual flaws but that's not the point here. The case can be sealed to gen spec, there are no crown threads to strip, the movement can be to gen spec and finish for the older models (where you use the CdG version). These can be visually enhanced by using gen parts but then we are straying into the franken / gen territory.

Personally, I can't honestly say I've seen a seiko w/ better fit and finish than the top 6 or 7 reps I own, but there may be many seiko's I don't know about that do surpass them. The jimmy comments are dead on accurate: I sunk 1165 into a PAM 03 w/ OEM crown, custon tube, and jimmy everything else. Granted, this is a rare bird but it keeps time as gen, is as durable and gen, excedes gen water resitance ratings, and is indistinguishable from the gen w/ serial # 1167, which for all we know is the one for sale for 7 grand on Paneristi as I type.

My takeaway is that not only is it far more satisfying to spend a bunch of time, effort and money on a top notch rep than driving to the mall to pick up a Jazzmaster, but also that it's possible to end up w/ a better watch, too.