As for servicing and replacement movements. H. Moser - by all means a luxry watch manufacturer, has some modular parts that they can exchange right away to reduce service times. Like the balance assembly. What that means is that you get a like new refurbished/serviced balance assembly without a long wait during servicing, they take yours and service/refurbish it and put it in someone elses watch etc. Since the part is refurbished to an as-new condition, I see nothing wrong in that. You could wait for YOUR balance assembly to come back and the service carries it's own warranty - so there is no downside really to the replacement idea. But then there is also no "throwing away". I heard the Swatch group does the same with some of their movements. But you can always opt-out of these and insist you get yours back but then you might need to wait for much longer.
I've never been a big fan of getting concerned about which parts are replaced in my watches but I do understand why some do (the whole philosophical question about how much of an original needs to remain to still consider it the original rather than a replica). But it's one of those things I've seen some use to try and draw that luxury versus non-luxury line on watches.
@@WatcheswithDennis Yeah true - Ship of Theseus - love that thoughtexperiment.... if over time, many many years, every single part of your watch was exchanged with a new one, is it still your watch?
As good a definition as I have heard. I would prefer another term, like high quality watch, because I appreciate quality and a decent serviceable movement, but I don't worry about exclusivity at all.
I consider "luxury" a phoney, made-up concept to fool the type of low information consumers who think that something is more desirable because it's "exclusive" or "rare" (when the vast majority of goods sold as "luxury" items are neither). Personally, i care not one bit how many units are made, or how common an item is. In fact, the more people who own nice mechanical watches the better! I care about design, quality, history, and reputation - and not much else. I don't care about resell value either, since i'll never sell a watch i own.
I still wonder if anyone has ever paid list price on an Invicta (speaking of relying on low information). To me the term is a bit like microbrand. In one way it doesn't matter. In others it helps to have some basic concepts shared in the definition so we all know what we are talking about.
I agree - of course it's made up. By definition Luxury is unneccessary - it's there for your pure enjoyment and is always a very expensive or exclusive replacement for another item/service that does the same thing.
Adrian Barker has an interesting analysis. He splits it into affordable, premium, and luxury. Where luxury is truly expensive, exclusive, and with plenty of "veblen" to it. For example, he considers the Explorer 1 as Premium because it's not exclusive, few Rolex's are. Plus it's a tool, not an inessential bibelot. I don't agree with him, though it's a great analysis. I think it's more reletive to the context. No watch is a luxury to a billionaire. All watches are luxurious to a pauper. However, I do find the WUS Consensus definition of affordable to luxury very useful. Affordable
Interesting I haven't seen that video I will search it up. The Premium angle I can see value in but I suppose it reminds me of those tier breakdowns where you see Entry Luxury, Middle Luxury, etc. A lot of ways we can slice it. Entertaining to think about so long as we avoid spiraling into an abyss of nuance of course!
When it comes to Luxury, to quote ArchieLuxury he says, “it’s gotta hurt”. For someone on a low income, a Rado is luxury as that hurts to buy. For someone with some more funds that becomes an Omega or Rolex. For the rich, that might be Richard Mille.
I think this was the best definition of luxury I’ve heard so far. Universal and comprehensive. Not based on individual bias.
As for servicing and replacement movements. H. Moser - by all means a luxry watch manufacturer, has some modular parts that they can exchange right away to reduce service times. Like the balance assembly. What that means is that you get a like new refurbished/serviced balance assembly without a long wait during servicing, they take yours and service/refurbish it and put it in someone elses watch etc. Since the part is refurbished to an as-new condition, I see nothing wrong in that. You could wait for YOUR balance assembly to come back and the service carries it's own warranty - so there is no downside really to the replacement idea. But then there is also no "throwing away". I heard the Swatch group does the same with some of their movements. But you can always opt-out of these and insist you get yours back but then you might need to wait for much longer.
I've never been a big fan of getting concerned about which parts are replaced in my watches but I do understand why some do (the whole philosophical question about how much of an original needs to remain to still consider it the original rather than a replica). But it's one of those things I've seen some use to try and draw that luxury versus non-luxury line on watches.
@@WatcheswithDennis Yeah true - Ship of Theseus - love that thoughtexperiment.... if over time, many many years, every single part of your watch was exchanged with a new one, is it still your watch?
As good a definition as I have heard. I would prefer another term, like high quality watch, because I appreciate quality and a decent serviceable movement, but I don't worry about exclusivity at all.
I consider "luxury" a phoney, made-up concept to fool the type of low information consumers who think that something is more desirable because it's "exclusive" or "rare" (when the vast majority of goods sold as "luxury" items are neither). Personally, i care not one bit how many units are made, or how common an item is. In fact, the more people who own nice mechanical watches the better! I care about design, quality, history, and reputation - and not much else. I don't care about resell value either, since i'll never sell a watch i own.
I still wonder if anyone has ever paid list price on an Invicta (speaking of relying on low information). To me the term is a bit like microbrand. In one way it doesn't matter. In others it helps to have some basic concepts shared in the definition so we all know what we are talking about.
I agree - of course it's made up. By definition Luxury is unneccessary - it's there for your pure enjoyment and is always a very expensive or exclusive replacement for another item/service that does the same thing.
Adrian Barker has an interesting analysis. He splits it into affordable, premium, and luxury. Where luxury is truly expensive, exclusive, and with plenty of "veblen" to it. For example, he considers the Explorer 1 as Premium because it's not exclusive, few Rolex's are. Plus it's a tool, not an inessential bibelot.
I don't agree with him, though it's a great analysis. I think it's more reletive to the context. No watch is a luxury to a billionaire. All watches are luxurious to a pauper.
However, I do find the WUS Consensus definition of affordable to luxury very useful.
Affordable
Interesting I haven't seen that video I will search it up. The Premium angle I can see value in but I suppose it reminds me of those tier breakdowns where you see Entry Luxury, Middle Luxury, etc. A lot of ways we can slice it. Entertaining to think about so long as we avoid spiraling into an abyss of nuance of course!
When it comes to Luxury, to quote ArchieLuxury he says, “it’s gotta hurt”. For someone on a low income, a Rado is luxury as that hurts to buy. For someone with some more funds that becomes an Omega or Rolex. For the rich, that might be Richard Mille.
Interesting. I suppose in the words of Saruman, "you have elected the way of pain."