"Olaf Peuss" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:br6ibs$pfk$***@online.de...
snip
> And BTW: What is overpriced? Any article that is sold at more than
material,
> production and transport to the customer cost? And if the seller is
allowed
> to make a profit, should there be a limit to the profit margin? And who
sets
> that margin? You, I, the government? Who says that marketing and
advertising
> don't have a rightful place in promoting manufacturers' good? And of
course
> it costs a lot of money, so the cost of that needs to be calculated in the
> product price.
You can argue that any product that is sold at a market price is by
definition not overpriced. But I think the function of the "critic" is to
separate the fairly priced from the overpriced - consumer magazines, at
least in my country, do this all the time - pronouncing various products as
"best buys" in their categories.
>
>
> [...]
> > I think a modern automatic can be justified as a purely practical
> > purchase - the accuracy is good enough (sometimes better than quartz
> > because mechanical errors tend to cancel out but quart watches are
> > usually off in the same direction so errors accumulate)
>
> I have a Tissot quartz watch, too. It goes fast by five to six seconds -
IN
> SIX MONTHS! Show me a self-winding of such precision. Mechanical errors do
> sometimes cancel out but certainly not entirely. If they did, mechanical
> watches would be more precise than quartz but they aren't. And who defines
> that "accuracy is good enough"?
>
>
Good enough for me, and apparently for millions of others, judging by the
sales of Rolex, Seiko, and the other mechanical makers. Mechanical watches
are not niche products like fountain pens, they remain "good enough" to be
used by an average person who has no special interest in horology, though
even more choose quartz.
> > and the
> > battery will not die at some inopportune time. Something like a Seiko
> > 5 can be worn for up to 20 years without cleaning and then discarded.
> > If you add up 20 years of battery changes, the Seiko is the cheaper
> > deal as well.
>
> NACK. You are obviously not good at maths. Any cheap and cheeful quartz
> costs no more than $10. It works for three to five years, then it's time
to
> buy a new battery (costs $2-2.5 each, so let's say 2 battery changes in 10
> years cost $5). After 10 years you dispose of the watch and buy another
$10
> one. With 2 more battery changes in the following 10 years, you'll have
> "used up" two watches and four additional batteries. This will have added
up
> to $30 in 20 years - give or take 1 or 2 bucks. A new Seiko 5 costs $60
over
> here in Germany (and certainly not less than $40-50 in the USA) and runs
> less accurately right from the start. I do have a Seiko 5 Automatic, so
I'm
> talking personal experience when I say it's crap, as it runs fast by 70-90
> seconds per day and thus deserves to get a speeding ticket every five
> minutes! And the cost of having the watch adjusted would add to the $60
that
> it cost, so over a period of 20 years, a Seiko 5 would turn out a big loss
> compared to 2 cheap quartz watches with their spare batteries, and that is
> even if you do not give your self-winding any maintenance in 20 years. In
> terms of prices, NO mechanical watch can beat a quartz. That's a fact you
> cannot argue away unless you entirely disregard mathematics.
> So, if you throw in price as an argument for a cheap mechanical, I'll beat
> you with a cheaper quartz anytime. And as far as dying batteries are
> concerned: Most quartz movements have an E.O.L. indicator that warns you a
> *minimum* of two weeks in advance - more than sufficient time to find a
> place that changes a battery for 2-3 bucks. OK, if you live in a 3rd world
> country (do you consider West Europe or the USA third world, Jack?), you
> might be better of with a Seiko 5. OTOH, I can hardly imagine that bushmen
> in the Kalahari desert need watches to survive. They have survived that
past
> 20,000 years without any achievements of modern civilisation, and would
> certainly survive the next 20,000 too, i.e. if the "civilised" settlers
> kindly stopped moving into their territory and destroying their sources of
> life. But that's another story.
>
>
You are comparing apples and oranges - I could find a $10 Chinese mechanical
watch also. You can manipulate these figures anyway you want - start with a
Seiko quartz and figure $10 for battery changes every 2 years and the
numbers come out different. Either way, owning a watch is not particulalry
expensive any more. At one time, watches were like laptop computers today -
they were too expensive for every person to own one.
> > The
> > modern motto is "what have you done for me LATELY?". To me, Mercedes
> > is long dead
>
> So, you did have a long history of driving Mercedes then, I suppose? Or is
> it the same as with Rolex watches: You judge things without any personal
> experience? You see, if somebody asks me for my opinion on any given
topic,
> I tell them straight away whether I have any personal experience in that
> topic or not (see my posting on Eterna/Omega). If you wrote something like
> "Well, I don't recommend Rolex but must admit that I've never had one",
> everyone would be able to put your statements into the right context.
OTOH,
> Rolex bashing seems to be very popular, so you're not even something
special
> with our anti-Rolexism. Strange though that it always come from people who
> don't have any personal Rolex experience. Should jealousy and prejudice be
> the real reasons for Rolex bashing rather than well-grounded facts?
Methinks
> so!
>
I was clearly referring to Mercedes the swimmer not Mercedes the car (read
the continuation). I'll forgive the misunderstanding due to language barrier
(in English cars are neuter, not feminine). I haven't owned Mercedes (cars)
but I have owned BMW and currently drive an Audi so I don't have anything
against German cars - in fact I rather like them. Mercedes is not my
favorite, but that's for another forum.
>
> > and her (and Rolex's)accomplishment in 1926 counts for
> > nothing today - it has expired due to passage of time.
>
> Well, you might know a lot about mechanical watches, i.e. they way they
work
> etc. But IMO you've failed to understand one quite important thing about
> them: Mechanical watches are anachronistic by themselves. Neither
> economically nor in their precision do they approach being a match for
> modern quartz watches, let alone R.C. ones. So, if one wants to buy an
> anachronism just because they like it or feel fascination for miniature
> precision mechanics, I find it very strange to criticise their choice of
> brands as such. Someone asks whether to buy a Rolex Submariner or GMT II,
> you tell them to buy a "Marcello C Nettuno 3" instead. Somebody else wants
> to know where to best get a Tag Heuer, you tell them to buy a Fortis
> instead. Of course, you do have the legal right to suggest whatever you
> want. But consider the following: You need not be in their shoes, you need
> not do their work and you need not pay their bills. So what business of
> yours is it what watch they want to buy? If they have a question, of
course
> it's your right to be impolite and critise their choice of brands and try
to
> talk them into buying something else instead. But let me express that I
find
> such "suggestions" arrogant and snobbish as it always suggests that you
know
> better than the buyers themselves what is the best watch for them and what
> is the best way to spend their money.
I think I am anti-snobbish. A lot of people are not aware that many watches
share the same movement and yet sell for vastly different prices. If I told
you that instead of buying a Mercedes for $50,000, for $25,000 you could buy
a car with the same internals as a Mercedes but only the sheet metal was
different, might not you be interested in this if you didn't know that
before? Or if I told you that for $10,000 you could buy a car that was
different than Mercedes, but whose performance was just as good? You are
free to take or leave my advice, but I know that some people have followed
it and have not regretted it for a moment.
> If I want to buy a Rolex (which I'm probably going to do next year), who
are
> you to suggest that I'll be better off buying something else instead? Let
me
> say one thing clearly: Yes, brand does matter to me, as well as look does
> (I'm speaking purely of myself, as I'm an extreme egoist when it comes to
> watches: I wear them entirely for my own satisfaction, not to impress
other
> people). I tend to trust brand articles more than some noname stuff which
> might be good - or not. If an expensive brand article should fail, I'd
take
> it straight back to the shop and complain. Trust me, I've never
experienced
> that sellers of expensive brand articles don't bend over backwards if I
come
> with a justified complaint. So far, however, I've had no reason to
complain
> about any Swiss watch that I bought, either for myself or for my wife:
Three
> Tissot watches, a Gent's PR100 Automatic, a Gent's PR200 Quartz and a
> beautiful Lady's Tissot Ballade with a mother-of-pearl dial as well as my
> Omega Seamaster GMT have never failed or caused any trouble. Owing to
Tissot
> watches indicating the E.O.L. of a battery well in advance (three weeks
> minimum), neither I nor my wife have ever been surprised by batteries
dying
> on us "off the wall."
Funny, I've personally had bad experience with Tissot and I've heard others
say the same thing. Though that was some years ago - I think Tissot quality
has gone back up after a low point in the '80s. Obviously you do get
something when you buy a brand name. Part of what you are paying for (and
should be getting) when you buy an expensive product is good treatment in
the shop and from the service department during the warranty period. But
often what you get is just the APPEARANCE of good service - lots of dressed
up people giving you lip service but who often don't know what they are
talking about or what they are doing. And what ever "free" service you get
at the beginning, Rolex will more than make up for that in a few years when
they charge you several hundred Euros to do a simple cleaning of your watch.
Sometimes (but not always) you get BETTER genuine service with lower priced
products if you deal with a small vendor or even direct with the factory.
The people you talk to may not be dressed as nicely or as elaborately
polite, but they make up for that by being truly knowledgeable. In
particular some of the internet vendors are fantastic and have literally
worldwide customer bases because of this.
As for your contention that you are buying only for your own satisfaction,
you are only fooling yourself.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Olaf
>
> Use "reply to" address for e-mail, please.
>