Would You Willingly Pay More?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bundamania

Tyme Twister
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
5,749
To receive Sapphire crystals and scissor style clasps on your bracelets, and Super-LumiNova? My answer is an easy yes! I don't understand why a higher end model is corner cut for such cheaper reasons. After you've had these upgrades in the past, it's hard to look beyond these cost cutting decisions of some manufactures these days for me.
 
All about more $$ in their pocket or they want to keep costs down you
choose.
 
I agree whole heartedly, (well not so much when it comes to SL, I'm not really a lume-hugger) but I will always pay willingly for better quality clasps, solid end links and sapphire.
I'm not FB savvy but hopefully someone will make a similar post as this one on Wing's/Aragon's FB page, just as a customer's friendly nudge/hint :wink:
 
If I understand your position... Perhaps the manufacturers have decided that unlike you, and other serious collectors, many potential buyers are not willing to pay more for the upgrades you mention. Or, they may feel that there is a potentially larger market for a lower-priced watch. Another issue, that you didn't address, would be which movements they choose to install.

Or maybe I didn't understand at all. The older I get, the weaker my comprehension abilities become. :no:
 
I think one problem you have is that companies like Seiko and Invicta have already invested a ton of money in their own proprietary blends of lume and crystals. I'd imagine they are very unwilling to start bringing in sapphire crystals from outside when they already own the production rights and/or facilities to make them in house. Seiko, for example, is still putting Hardlex crystals on MarineMasters that cost over $1,000--it defies explanation, as does Invicta's continued use of Tritnite.

I'm all for adding, say, $25 to the purchase price of every watch I buy in exchange for Sapphire and C3 Superluminova.
 
Well sometimes Invicta will offer a cheaper watch with upgraded sapphire crystalline SL so they can do it when they want to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
While not having all the nice extras never stopped me from buying a watch, having one or more of the nice extras has been the reason I purchased many watches in the past.
 
If I understand your position... Perhaps the manufacturers have decided that unlike you, and other serious collectors, many potential buyers are not willing to pay more for the upgrades you mention. Or, they may feel that there is a potentially larger market for a lower-priced watch. Another issue, that you didn't address, would be which movements they choose to install.

Or maybe I didn't understand at all. The older I get, the weaker my comprehension abilities become. :no:

As long as it's not a Master Calender... Old eyes!!! I'm pretty good with what ever engine they use. I quess I'm more concerned with the bells and whistles here TT.
 
i don't think it is binary-black or white...

problem being....many companies have all that good stuff BUT ARE NOW LIQUIDATING BELOW MANUFACTURERS COST BECAUSE OF GLOBAL PRICE RE-SET AND FALLING DEMAND...

- i would not want to face these cost pressures as a manufacturer...and would chose...any thing that would help me keep the doors open ...basically lower cost parts-

WITS want top componentry ..but we don't like to pay-- those are mutually exclusive goals--
 
I think one problem you have is that companies like Seiko and Invicta have already invested a ton of money in their own proprietary blends of lume and crystals. I'd imagine they are very unwilling to start bringing in sapphire crystals from outside when they already own the production rights and/or facilities to make them in house. Seiko, for example, is still putting Hardlex crystals on MarineMasters that cost over $1,000--it defies explanation, as does Invicta's continued use of Tritnite.

I'm all for adding, say, $25 to the purchase price of every watch I buy in exchange for Sapphire and C3 Superluminova.

Quite so but there does exist a stark difference between trademarked products and that difference is that Seiko for one will actually answer when questioned as to what something is.

Specifically, Hardlex is chemically strengthened soda-lime or borosilicate used to keep costs down while performing adequately at double the depths Seiko advertised. This policy of Seiko of testing to a minimum of double the advertised depth meant that the sapphire would have to be so thick that the usual upcharge would have increased costs dramatically. Seiko never obfuscated what the stuff was, claimed it was magic or suggested it was superior to sapphire. Though in the last ten years they've been using more and more sapphire in the Prospex line.

I don't believe that Invicta or similar brands invested anything in their proprietary crystals and lume apart from the nominal sum needed to trademark a name and apply it to whatever stuff they were buying.

/ end massive thread veer.


As to the OP - yes. I routinely spend a bit more for sapphire though it should be noted that costs for synthetic sapphire have declined so it's not a great hardship. I also pay a decent sum for a bracelet I like. For that matter I also have a couple alligator straps because nothing gets on my last nerve like Stuhrling describing their ten cent strap as "alligator embossed genuine leather".

But the absolute worst thing that I've seen is that, every so often, a brand known for inexpensive product will up and produce something high priced and then ruin it with bits from their low line. I'm probably not the only one to notice that Stuhrling floated a "prestige" line which, inexplicably, still had a Krysterna (cough) crystal and "alligator embossed genuine leather" strap. Oh, the humanity!

When you're selling stuff for around one large there's no excuse for a ten cent strap or mystery crystal. Period.

I can get pretty forgiving when a product is around 50 or 100 bucks but as it starts scratching 300.00 I start getting more narrow minded and when it hits one large I've exhausted most all of my forgiving nature regarding corner cutting.
 
i don't think it is binary-black or white...

problem being....many companies have all that good stuff BUT ARE NOW LIQUIDATING BELOW MANUFACTURERS COST BECAUSE OF GLOBAL PRICE RE-SET AND FALLING DEMAND...

- i would not want to face these cost pressures as a manufacturer...and would chose...any thing that would help me keep the doors open ...basically lower cost parts-

WITS want top componentry ..but we don't like to pay-- those are mutually exclusive goals--


Hard to feel any sympathy or compassion for companies in the world we live in. Do you think for one second there is any compassion for the average person from the big pharmaceutical corporations insatiable greed or any other global giants?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...tle-proven-benefits-leading-doctors-warn.html


As for the OP question, I would rather have a few timepieces with better components than a bunch that use cheaper parts for the same amount of the total cost spent. This is a prime example of less being more.

 
I would be willing to pay more for better stuffz. Get rid of the cheap crappy plastic movement holder. Tired of cleaning the crystal. But I am willing to upgrade, mod and make a watch better if need be.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
 
I am already paying more, so...the answer would be yes.
 
Quite so but there does exist a stark difference between trademarked products and that difference is that Seiko for one will actually answer when questioned as to what something is.

Specifically, Hardlex is chemically strengthened soda-lime or borosilicate used to keep costs down while performing adequately at double the depths Seiko advertised. This policy of Seiko of testing to a minimum of double the advertised depth meant that the sapphire would have to be so thick that the usual upcharge would have increased costs dramatically. Seiko never obfuscated what the stuff was, claimed it was magic or suggested it was superior to sapphire. Though in the last ten years they've been using more and more sapphire in the Prospex line.

I don't believe that Invicta or similar brands invested anything in their proprietary crystals and lume apart from the nominal sum needed to trademark a name and apply it to whatever stuff they were buying.

/ end massive thread veer.


As to the OP - yes. I routinely spend a bit more for sapphire though it should be noted that costs for synthetic sapphire have declined so it's not a great hardship. I also pay a decent sum for a bracelet I like. For that matter I also have a couple alligator straps because nothing gets on my last nerve like Stuhrling describing their ten cent strap as "alligator embossed genuine leather".

But the absolute worst thing that I've seen is that, every so often, a brand known for inexpensive product will up and produce something high priced and then ruin it with bits from their low line. I'm probably not the only one to notice that Stuhrling floated a "prestige" line which, inexplicably, still had a Krysterna (cough) crystal and "alligator embossed genuine leather" strap. Oh, the humanity!

When you're selling stuff for around one large there's no excuse for a ten cent strap or mystery crystal. Period.

I can get pretty forgiving when a product is around 50 or 100 bucks but as it starts scratching 300.00 I start getting more narrow minded and when it hits one large I've exhausted most all of my forgiving nature regarding corner cutting.

Buzzard, I'm on your side, you know that. There is no bigger Seiko addict than yours truly on this forum, as far as I know....(not bragging, more musing). I was just making the point that these companies overlook the need to change out their normal parts when the price points start to get close to or over 4 digits. I am not even sure they are being cheap. Could be just oversight, or lack thereof. Hard to believe but it certainly happens in more than just the watch industry.

Case in point would be the Seiko TransOcean. Lower price point than the MarineMaster (Auto), yet the TransOcean has a sapphire crystal and and the MarineMaster doesn't. Both are dive spec rated. Maybe it's just an experiment to see if more people will buy TransOceans because of the Sapphire--like Invicta occasionally using Superluminova....?
 
Buzzard, I'm on your side, you know that. There is no bigger Seiko addict than yours truly on this forum, as far as I know....(not bragging, more musing). I was just making the point that these companies overlook the need to change out their normal parts when the price points start to get close to or over 4 digits. I am not even sure they are being cheap. Could be just oversight, or lack thereof. Hard to believe but it certainly happens in more than just the watch industry.

Case in point would be the Seiko TransOcean. Lower price point than the MarineMaster (Auto), yet the TransOcean has a sapphire crystal and and the MarineMaster doesn't. Both are dive spec rated. Maybe it's just an experiment to see if more people will buy TransOceans because of the Sapphire--like Invicta occasionally using Superluminova....?

Oh, there's no doubt you've taken Seikoholism to a level beyond my own. But I'm old and have perhaps collected some historic rationales. Specifically the depth ratings differ between the sapphire TransOcean and Marine Master. Due to their practice of building to double the rated depth the 600 meter spec on the base line Marine Master requires a thickness bump in the sapphire that didn't appeal to them on a cost / performance basis.

Additionally, the Marine Master crystal is dual curved AR treated chemically hardened borosilicate glass - not the easiest thing to duplicate in sapphire. My specific Marine Master SBDB009 has a sapphire crystal but it doesn't display the dual curve properties of the SBDX017. The sapphire crystal in the MarineMaster is more akin to the sapphire in the TransOcean - not that there's anything wrong with that, no sir. But I'm guessing if you eyeball the dual curve borosilicate crystal in the Marine Master on your next safari into the depths of the NY boutique you'll notice a difference.

If you want dual curved sapphire you'll be in Grand Seiko's neighborhood. You'll also note that one of the primary differences, using the 9F range as an example, is the crystal shape rather than composition. The standard sapphire product is listed at 2,200.00 and the dual curved sapphire at 3,100.00 (I believe the difference between the 9F62 and 9F82 is just the size - the crystal takes a fair amount of the blame for the pricing difference).


http://www.exquisitetimepieces.com/grand-seiko-quartz-sbgv205.html
vs.
http://www.exquisitetimepieces.com/grand-seiko-quartz-sbgx259.html


I could certainly be wrong but I believe it's a mistake to simply compare what a given crystal is made from without including adjustments for both thickness and profile. A literal reading of some information on crystals would have you believe a 2mm flat 40mm sapphire is superior to a 4mm dual curved chemically treated borosilicate and IMHO it just ain't so.

As a general rule, and one that I go along with, sapphire beats the wackers out of mineral crystal if they're at all alike otherwise. If they're considerably different then one should factor in these differences.

Naturally none of this means you can't have a dive watch a dual curved crystal AND sapphire - Grand Seiko will fix you right up for around 7 large. Hence, while I find your conjecture to be plausible, I don't really believe Seiko is trolling the market with the TransOcean's flat sapphire. Certainly not everything they do makes sense but the dive watch crystals have been explained adequately by one Tokunaga San to suit me.

Regrettably if I'm correct on the subtleties of crystal properties apart from material I may have inadvertently contributed to the early and untimely death of your wallet. I'm not saying that dual curved mineral is better than dual curved sapphire - it isn't. But dual curved sapphire will kick you right in the wallet. Offering a choice between dual curve mineral and flat sapphire strikes me as reasonable. You pays your money and takes your pick.
 
I think one problem you have is that companies like Seiko and Invicta have already invested a ton of money in their own proprietary blends of lume and crystals. I'd imagine they are very unwilling to start bringing in sapphire crystals from outside when they already own the production rights and/or facilities to make them in house. Seiko, for example, is still putting Hardlex crystals on MarineMasters that cost over $1,000--it defies explanation, as does Invicta's continued use of Tritnite.

I'm all for adding, say, $25 to the purchase price of every watch I buy in exchange for Sapphire and C3 Superluminova.

I agree but I will say this about Seiko - I've never had a problem with a Hardlex crystal (though sapphire is preferred) and the lume is mad bright. As for Invicta, no past problems with FlameFusion crystals for me but Tritnite is awful compared to Seiko lume and superluminova.
 
No hope for any staying power with Tritnite. Tritnite trying to hold a charge is like an old geezer gasping their last breath swallowing a container of Viagra and trying to go out in a blaze of glory, hopeless.

giphy.gif
giphy.gif
 
As an aside and assuming my information isn't out of date it should perhaps be noted that not all Hardlex is created equal.

In the case of the Seiko 5 series it's chemically toughened soda-lime glass; in the case of the Prospex Marinemaster it's chemically toughened borosilicate glass.

The wikipedia entry on borosilicate glass is serviceable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borosilicate_glass
Borosilicate glass is a type of glass with silica and boron trioxide as the main glass-forming constituents. Borosilicate glasses are known for having very low coefficients of thermal expansion (~3 × 10−6 K−1 at 20 °C), making them resistant to thermal shock, more so than any other common glass. Such glass is less subject to thermal stress and is commonly used for the construction of reagent bottles.

This may be connected to the fact that the ISO-6425 standard for dive watches includes a test for resistance to thermal shock.
Resistance to thermal shock. Immersion of the watch in 30±2 cm of water at the following temperatures for 10 minutes each, 40 °C, 5 °C and 40 °C again. The time of transition from one immersion to the other shall not exceed 1 minute. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.

Such a test is not required under standard ISO-2281 which is applicable to water resistant watches as opposed to true dive watches.


As such we can't even count on mineral crystals all being of the same quality or utility. AR coated, special profile, chemically toughened borosilicate is miles different than a generic mineral crystal. While I would prefer a sapphire crystal all other things being equal sometimes all other things aren't equal and it gums up the equations.

Like the man above says I can easily forgive Seiko calling their lume whatever they please to call it. After all it works really well.
 
For me, I would be willing to pay slightly more for sapphire. Like was said before, something in the range of $20-30 more. But then again, I just ordered myself a case press with all the different shapes and sizes of pucks, so whenever I need a new crystal, I will be buying Sapphire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom