[tony20009]

Preface:
If you are one of those watch shoppers whom I can easily relate -- someone who can buy a watch in ten minutes flat by trying it on, and saying "I'll take it" or who knows without reservation that "it's not the one," you need not read this post.

General
Held at gunpoint and forced to choose a price range from which to select a watch, I'd sooner spend ~1200 or less or I'd spend ~$9K or more. That's not to say I'm unaware of exceptions, but overall, those are the price brackets I find most satisfying. I can't stand watch shopping in the mid-range price brackets because nearly all of them fall into a handful of basic categories, key attributes of which just don't appeal to me:

• Cost more than the priciest low end pieces --> perform no better.
• Cost more than the priciest low end pieces --> offer no visual features that are not proportionally "worth" the premium (over a low end alternative) the maker charges for them.
• Almost invariably "skimp" on something to keep the watch in the mid-range instead of tipping into the high-end.
  • Focus first on form than function. Consider a mid-range chronograph for example. One can get Geneva stripes and some beveled edges in plenty of mid-range watches. But in a chornogaph jumping minutes, an adjustable, synchronized brake and clutch*, or even precisely honed gear teeth with a horizontal clutch in order to eliminate the "chrono seconds jump" are rarely found.** I don't know of any mid-range chronos that have those features.
    
    One can't very well tout, as mid-range makers do, refinement and attention to detail while at the same time choosing a design that forces less refinement overall in the product produced. I wouldn't write that if mid-range makers looked down-market in their promotional messages, but they don't, they look up-market. And to me, that means offering the up-market design and engineering, but skimping on the decorative stuff. Mid-range makers do exactly the opposite.
    
    *Note:
    To be fair, plenty of chronos allow one to synchronize the brake and clutch by adjusting both levers independently. I don't know that any mid-range pieces do it by coordinating the geometry of the brake lever with the clutch arm so that the two are brought into synchronicity using one screw adjustment.
    
    **Note:
    Makers use a vertical clutch to solve the "engagement jump" issue, but doing so necessarily results in a thicker watch, which is inherently less elegant looking overall.

"Worth" is, of course, highly subjective. If a mid-range watch offers an aesthetic feature that just doesn't exist on a affordable watch and one "has to have" that feature, well, assuming that watch is the lowest priced one available, I guess it's "worth it."

"Skimping" is also difficult to gauge, but what it amounts to is a watch maker's variation on having their cake and eating it too. I offered above a few examples of skimping as it pertains to chronographs. Another example, one which pertains to any type of watch, is the use of a presentation back to show off some Geneva stripes and a shiny bevel here and there. Now from where I sit, Cote de Geneve, bevels, chamfers, poli noir, brouillage, perlage, etirage, dressage, along with where those treatments are applied don't matter until they are applied in a sophisticated enough way that their presence on the movement means something, at which point there's a good reason to install a see through caseback.

Many mid-range makers, however, will install a presentation caseback so that consumers can see the Geneva waves on the major bridges/plates. The thing is that while the movement does have the waves, on a mid-price watch, they got there like this:

.

Okay, no problem with that. I'm not going to be a snob about handmade stripes vs. machine made, but neither am I going to "wet my britches" over the fact that a maker stuck a piece of metal under a grinder and scraped away some metal so as to make a wavy pattern. Rather than belabor that, let's move on.

Is the lower overall case strength as a result of a crystal caseback rather than a metal one something I should be happy about? Should I be pleased that both the front and back of my watch are now exposed to the risk of impact and/or surface damage? All that so I can see a few machine cranked out stripes on a movement that otherwise shows few or no other finishing refinement. What else is there to the movement's finishing that gives me a reason to want to see it?

To hell with that! Put a metal caseback on the thing, skip the Geneva striping, charge a lower price or install a more accurate and more precise movement.

Another thing I absolutely hate about shopping in the mid-range is that I have to go out of my way to get details about the watch, be it the movement, case, dial, etc. I can't tell you how often I've asked a salesperson or customer service agent a question and they just don't know and have no place from which to get the answer, other than the same resources I have. (It happens too often to chalk it up to the person being new every time I ask.) And this is in watch stores, not Macy's or Neiman Marcus or another store wherein salespeople are basically there but not necessarily experts on the merchandise they sell.

Sample questions I might ask range from easy ones that have "yes/no" answers to those that require specific awareness of basics to those that ask for an informed opinion or representation of the maker's motivations:

• Have the countersinks been polished?
• What types of finishing is on the unseen portions of the movement?
• Is the movement plated with anything?
• Which variant of the movement is in the watch? Standard, elaborated, or top?
• Which (or what supplier's) formulation of superluminova is used in this watch?
• What is the base metal used for gold looking gear wheels?
• Why did they leave the column wheel exposed?
• Please explain the design approach used for the self-adjusting hammers and clutch. (Not a question I expect them to answer off the top of their heads, but one for which I expect them to have access to an accurate and comprehensive answer.)
• Is the dial foil covered or engraved?
• How is the case made?
• Who made the ebauche/movement and who performed the finishing?

You don't know and have no way to quickly find out? Okay, well that is what it is. I was just asking. Have a good day...

The short is that I find it very hard to buy mid-range watches on impulse, which is mostly how I how I end up buying any mid-range watch. Mid-range makers are so busy trying to seem like they are more 'this or that' than they truly are that folks who know they aren't "all that" but who still just want the simple truth lose interest. Countless are the nice mid-range watches I've not bought simply because by the time I get home (or to the hotel) to check, I just say, "Oh, screw it; I have plenty of nice watches already. I need to buy that watch like I need another hole in my head."

I could check the website or call the maker just as well as the salesperson can, only to find the info isn't there. I ask salespeople/customer service reps because I happened by the store (happened onto your website) and noticed this watch, and I thought "well if they can give me the "411" on this thing, as long as I don't learn anything unexpected, I'll buy it because it looks cool and different from what I'm used to seeing from this maker."

Despite the above, there are watches that strike me as excellent choices in the mid-range, excellent enough that as top quality time telling devices that also have first rate build quality, one must spend at least five times the money to get anything mechanical that's actually better built (in a way that'll show it's worth to anyone other than people who have specialized needs) and better at keeping time. The uncomplicated watches that meet that standard are generally the entry level pieces from big name makers:

• Omega's co-axial watches that can be had (today) priced between $2.5K and $3K, all of which are chronometers.
• Anyone's ETA-inside, Sellita-inside or Soporod-inside (or other reputable Swiss or German 3rd party movement maker) chronometer grade watch that prices below $2.5K.

I didn't mention Tag as being among that group because I haven't examined their watches lately. The last time I looked, their entry level pieces were expensive versions of stuff one could get for less, and their non-entry level, expensive watches that represented big compromises from what one could get for not a lot more money. That's not quite as "on point" with Tag's entry level chronographs, which, undeniably is the type of watch to buy from Tag.

Note too that I'm not at all saying Tags aren't nice watches. I'm not saying that because they are in fact very nice watches. I just find that their uncomplicated models cost a few hundred more than they need to/should and because my observation is that they are solid examples of the first bullet point at the start of this post.

Why do I say that? Consider this...at $2K you cannot get a chronometer grade, uncomplicated Tag. At $2.5K you can get a chronometer grade Omega with their co-axial escapement. And Omega warrants the the thing for two years longer (twice as long) than Tag does its $2K watch. (I'm not saying one needs the warranty; I'm saying that Omega has enough faith in their watch to offer it.)

So, by now, I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse. At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better.

Things were a couple years ago a bit better at the upper end of the mid-range than they are now. What signaled the difference? Rolex discontinuing the Air King is pretty much what did it. The Air King (AK) was an ~$4K dateless Rolex that had inside exactly the same "stuff " as the dateless Sub, Explorer I and Milgauss, watches that cost about double what the AK did, and that had exactly the same build quality features as do those pricier watches. (If you are in the market for a ~$4K watch, I suggest getting an AK. It'll serve you as well as any Rolex and discontinuance will make it a collector's item sooner or later.)

The mid-range got worse when the AK disappeared because that instantly allowed the mid-range to shift upward to about $6K, but the watches in that range are not any different than they were the day before Rolex announced the AK's end of production. The result is that whereas the big names used to have to keep their mid-range somewhere around $4K, they now charge more like $5K to $6K, give or take. That means value conscious folks need to look "off range" to makers that don't have nearly as wide a distribution network to find great buys.

So where does that leave one to look for good values? Well this is when one really needs to know more about oneself and what one expects than one needs to know about watches. It's not hard to find a good watch in the upper-mid price brackets. There's just no such thing as a "bad" $4K+ watch. (LOL) The things to think about are

• Ease of use and service - Must one send the watch to the maker for service or can a local guy do it and get parts from the maker if need be?
• Does one prefer brand cachet or watch functionality?
• Is "that one detail" (whatever it is -- be it styling and/or functional) worth enough to you that you'll pay two or more times what the same maker will charge for exactly the same watch without "that detail?"

So as you can tell if you've gotten this far, there are, for my taste, just too many compromises in the mid-price space. Better in my mind to spend a good deal less for not all that much difference, or spend a good deal more and get a whole lot of difference.


All the best.

[bobblehead]

in summary, you are mad at the watchmaker, distributor, retailer, yourself ??

cheaper alternative would be Apple watch, somewhat fashionable and trendy for a few hundred $

[Z K]

I'm pretty happy with my mid-range Tudor Black Bay. It has an ETA movement and it is not complicated but the case, bracelet and finishing from Rolex is excellent.

But then I'm not a watch collector.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by bobblehead

in summary, you are mad at the watchmaker, distributor, retailer, yourself ??

cheaper alternative would be Apple watch, somewhat fashionable and trendy for a few hundred $

Well, I'm certainly not angry with myself. Why would I be over a watch?

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Z K

I'm pretty happy with my mid-range Tudor Black Bay. It has an ETA movement and it is not complicated but the case, bracelet and finishing from Rolex is excellent.

But then I'm not a watch collector.

I like the BB too, but happiness isn't something I can quantify in expressing why I don't like choosing mid-range watches. That the BB runs about $2.5K and lacks a chronometer grade movement and the Seamaster and Constellation run about the same price and are is what I can quantify.

Whether I or anyone needs chronometer certification is a different matter. I don't really believe anyone does. All the same, if I can get it for $2.5K from maker A, then I expect it from maker B if they too want $2.5K for their watch.

It's only that sort of measure-for-measure kind of comparison that irks me about the mid-range. As far as there being lovely watches in the mid-range, well, there are many. And I like many of them, until I start wrapping my head around the objective details or the discovery experience. That's when I decide I'll spend a lot more or a lot less, and let the mid-range piece stay on the store shelf.

All the best.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I like the BB too, but happiness isn't something I can quantify in expressing why I don't like choosing mid-range watches. That the BB runs about $2.5K and lacks a chronometer grade movement and the Seamaster and Constellation run about the same price and are is what I can quantify.

Whether I or anyone needs chronometer certification is a different matter. I don't really believe anyone does. All the same, if I can get it for $2.5K from maker A, then I expect it from maker B if they too want $2.5K for their watch.

It's only that sort of measure-for-measure kind of comparison that irks me about the mid-range. As far as there being lovely watches in the mid-range, well, there are many. And I like many of them, until I start wrapping my head around the objective details or the discovery experience. That's when I decide I'll spend a lot more or a lot less, and let the mid-range piece stay on the store shelf.

All the best.

It was $3.5k... You can find used ones for $2.5 though. For the same price I could have gotten an Omega with a co-axial movement as you mentioned. I just liked the BB style more.

I have the blue version on bracelet. The leather strap one is available for $2.5k new from grey dealers.

[mookie45]

My guess is the majority of people are not watch connoisseurs like yourself. Here is a different perspective as to what others might think.

Usually, when a man buys a watch (I'm not sexist, I'm just more in tune with male buying habits rather than women, plus women have to match their jewelry and other accessories so it doesn't "clash", so basically a lot more complicated than a man) that is the only piece of jewelry he wears. With that being said, he probably would want an iconic timepiece that's in his price range. Iconic in the sense that the person next to him will know the watch brand he is wearing and allude to the lifestyle he lives.

Tag, Rolex, Cartier, Omega, etc are the first to come to mind of these iconic brands. People don't buy these watches strictly on movement, function or aesthetics but rather from the worldwide symbolism it carries. It's obvious some of these best sellers have had the same styling for 50+ years and haven't changed much but consumers keep buying them year over year. Although many of these brands became famous for their reliability & durability over time, the majority of us are not diving 300 meters, measuring speed on a tachymeter, or going to the moon anytime soon. Also, these most recognized pieces are in the $2k-$9k range. I'd say this mid price point is the most popular for consumers looking for a "luxury" watch.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by mookie45

My guess is the majority of people are not watch connoisseurs like yourself. Here is a different perspective as to what others might think.

Usually, when a man buys a watch (I'm not sexist, I'm just more in tune with male buying habits rather than women, plus women have to match their jewelry and other accessories so it doesn't "clash", so basically a lot more complicated than a man) that is the only piece of jewelry he wears. With that being said, he probably would want an iconic timepiece that's in his price range. Iconic in the sense that the person next to him will know the watch brand he is wearing and allude to the lifestyle he lives.

Tag, Rolex, Cartier, Omega, etc are the first to come to mind of these iconic brands. People don't buy these watches strictly on movement, function or aesthetics but rather from the worldwide symbolism it carries. It's obvious some of these best sellers have had the same styling for 50+ years and haven't changed much but consumers keep buying them year over year. Although many of these brands became famous for their reliability & durability over time, the majority of us are not diving 300 meters, measuring speed on a tachymeter, or going to the moon anytime soon. Also, these most recognized pieces are in the $2k-$9k range. I'd say this mid price point is the most popular for consumers looking for a "luxury" watch.

People do. Recognizing that is exactly why I wrote that in the mid-range, one needs to know oneself more so than one needs to know much about watches.

Folks don't need to tell me or others that they bought the watch for the "ooh, la la" factor, but when they are considering alternatives, they need to honest with themselves about it. If they are going to ask for advice on what to buy, well, then they need to tell the person they are asking so they can at least get good input.

I'll write unbidden about a lot of things watch-related, but choosing, or how to choose, for status reasons isn't among them. Folks are on their own for that, at least as far as I'm concerned.

All the best.

[mookie45]

I definitely believe people buy watches based off of what they see in marketing and advertising. Brand recognition sells. To some extent people need to know oneself but advertising and branding take out the majority of this thought process. And yes, people buy watches to "show off" just like cars. Or everyone would buy a Honda and wear a Timex. I'm just saying that mid range price point you're not so fond of is probably the most popular for consumers.

[louros]

I've always felt somewhat the same way - if I'm buying anything less than a Submariner, it better be under $1000. Nothing in between really appeals to me (except for possibly the co-axial Omegas as you mentioned).

[FogCityM3]

Agree...either buy a Hyundai or a Ferrari, don't bother with anything else.

Completely joking, I agree with you. I'd consider a Tudor (on quality) or Omega (on quality and some unique aspects), but I'm not a huge fan of the other aspirational brands. There are certain features that on higher end brands that stand out, eg. Rolex and durability of crystal and the alloy expansion "buckle" under the clasp that is virtually unbendable (ask anyone who services rolexes about this) , or unique movements that aren't really appreciated visually.

I'm a big fan of Rolex durability but the timekeeping leaves more to be desired..It's a problem with all automatic watches, but notice timekeeping difference with rolex within 18-24 months, which seems a little soon after buying new.

[K19BMW]

Are we talking used or new in this thread because if we are talking used then there are tons of watches that are inbetween $1200-$9000 that are priced midrange but are great watches and even new there are tons of great watches in that range.

Rolex Sub
Omegas (too many to list)
JLC MUT
Tudor (with there new inhouse movement)
Seiko (with there spring drive movement)
And many more.

If you had said between $1200-$5000 i would have agreed but $9000 is way to high an upper limit to start saying that nothing good falls inbetween that price

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by K19BMW

Are we talking used or new in this thread because if we are talking used then there are tons of watches that are inbetween $1200-$9000 that are priced midrange but are great watches and even new there are tons of great watches in that range.

Rolex Sub
Omegas (too many to list)
JLC MUT
Tudor (with their new inhouse movement)
Seiko (with their spring drive movement)
And many more.

If you had said between $1200-$5000 i would have agreed but $9000 is way to high an upper limit to star saying that nothing good falls inbetween that price

The early in the OP comment that went from $1200 to $9000 was an expression of what I'd sooner do than buy in the mid-range. It's not my definition of the mid-range's price spectrum. I see ~$2K to ~$7K as the mid-range.

I wrote $1200 >= I'd sooner buy >= $9000 because I have everything I actually want in the $5K - $9K range. Remember, the OP is about why "I" don't like shopping for mid-range watches, not about whether there are nice watches (or not) in the mid-range.

Re: the idea you're expressing, which is somewhat different than what I was addressing, I wrote:

• I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse. At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better.
• I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse.
• At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better....The [upper end of] mid-range got worse when the AK disappeared because that instantly allowed the mid-range to shift upward to about $6K, but the watches in that range are not any different than they were the day before Rolex announced the AK's end of production.

It's not that there aren't lovely watches between $5K and $9K, it's that one major change in the marketplace caused most of them quite simply to cost more than they should. At the lower end of the mid-range (~$2K to ~$2.5K) there aren't enough stand out watches.

Someone earlier mentioned the Tudor Black Bay, which is a a very nice watch., but for the same price, one can get an Omega co-axial. And what are the key differences?

• Chronometer grade time measurement/reporting -- Tudor no; Omega yes
• Free sprung balance -- Omega co-axial has it; Tudor's ETA Top doesn't. The benefit: vastly more shock resistant timekeeping because impacts can't shift the screws used to adjust timing rates whereas they can jar out of place the levers connected to the balance spring in the Tudor.
• Warranty length -- Tudor 2 years; Omega co-axial 4 years
• Sales and service -- This dimension is probably even, maybe a slight edge to Omega.
  • The Black Bay has access to service via the Rolex service network
  • The Black Bat has ETA-inside which means any watchmaker can deal with it.
  • The Omega requires less frequent recommended servicing in the first place because the things that makes most watches actually need servicing -- lube drying out and friction -- are vastly better in the co-axial escapements which have almost no friction and supposedly no lube required. (Early co-axials still needed a bit of lube; I don't know if the newest ones do.) As a practical matter, and ignoring the makers recommendations which I know many folks do, it's hard to say which has the upper hand. I'm inclined to say the Omega does just based on the physics, but the co-axial escapement hasn't been around for 40 years, as a perfected movement, it hasn't been around for
  • On sales, Omega has a wider network than does Tudor, so it's just easier to buy an Omega.
• Cachet, history and "legendary-ness" of the movement -- Hands down Omega. Why, well the ETA2892 on which the co-axial was based is legendary in its own right. Omega's enhancement of it to create the co-axial movement just ups the ante. The BB comes with the ETA 2824 -- no slouch by any means, but not quite as fine a movement as the 2892 due mainly to its thicker profile, lower shock resistance, and the 2892's always having a bit of decoration whereas the 2894s may or may not have decorative finishing, depending on how it's ordered.
• Overall build quality -- I could quibble on this and that minor feature, but overall, I'd call it even, and I'd do so for just about everything in the mid-range because my usage pattern won't ever find me caring about any individual minor features. The worse that'll happen to my watches is that I may drop them on a stone floor or sidewalk, and all of them are tough enough to survive that, even if they pick up a scratch or dent in the process.

The same sort of comparison can be made with lots of ~$2500 or less watches and an Omega co-axial (new, at discounted prices, not pre-owned). The thing is that at that end of the price spectrum, on objective measures, the co-axial watches win, time and again. That doesn't make the competing watches "not nice," it makes the Omegas nicer.

Subjectively speaking -- looks being foremost among such measures -- it's a different matter; people like what they like for whatever reasons. I myself don't like that the co-axial movements result in a thicker watch, and for the slightly dressier styles of watch I prefer, thicker is less desirable to me than is thinner.

How does that play out for me in terms of selecting a watch? Well, comparing say the Omega Constellation with one of Cartier's bracelet mounted, mid-price watches (Tank or CdC), I'd pick the Omega. Between a Constellation and Nautilus or Royal Oak, I like the looks of each to about the same extent. Now after having had a Constellation for a while, I'll want to have an RO, Cartier or Nautilus, if for no other reason than to have something different looking to wear from time to time.

Someone else might choose one of the Cartiers because they like the look better. The thing is that that person has consciously or unconsciously decided that subjective elements are more important than are objective ones. And, frankly, I decide that from time to time as well, so far be it from me to berate one for doing the same.

Lastly, as the preceding two paragraph allude, buying one nice watch to wear for a very long time, buying one's first nice watch, and buying watches in part as fashion accessories present a different, although somewhat overlapping, set of considerations and each of those buying scenarios rightly weights differently the factors involved.

All the best.

Note:
I don't buy into the "in-house is better because it's in-house" snobbery. I think in-house is better when the in-house-ness includes functional or aesthetic features and benefits that cannot be had in a 3rd party movement. Interestingly, there were a times when Swiss and guild laws prohibited fully-in-house watch production: the era of the Renaissance guilds (http://www.watch-around.com/en/subsc...-crescent.html) and the early 1900s (http://www.watchalyzer.com/education...-and-eta-2892/) There are only a handful -- three I know of for sure -- that remain from the Renaissance-Age of Enlightenment eras, and of them, only one is still the same company entity, owned by the same family that created it.

[K19BMW]

Originally Posted by tony20009

The early in the OP comment that went from $1200 to $9000 was an expression of what I'd sooner do than buy in the mid-range. It's not my definition of the mid-range's price spectrum. I see ~$2K to ~$7K as the mid-range.

I wrote $1200 >= I'd sooner buy >= $9000 because I have everything I actually want in the $5K - $9K range. Remember, the OP is about why "I" don't like shopping for mid-range watches, not about whether there are nice watches (or not) in the mid-range.

Re: the idea you're expressing, which is somewhat different than what I was addressing, I wrote:

• I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse. At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better.
• I've written about the low-ish end of the mid-range price points. It's natural that one might ask about the top end and the middle. Well, all I can say about the middle is that that's where the "issue" I just described re: Tag vs. Omega gets even worse.
• At the upper end of the mid-range, things are a bit better....The [upper end of] mid-range got worse when the AK disappeared because that instantly allowed the mid-range to shift upward to about $6K, but the watches in that range are not any different than they were the day before Rolex announced the AK's end of production.

It's not that there aren't lovely watches between $5K and $9K, it's that one major change in the marketplace caused most of them quite simply to cost more than they should. At the lower end of the mid-range (~$2K to ~$2.5K) there aren't enough stand out watches.

Someone earlier mentioned the Tudor Black Bay, which is a a very nice watch., but for the same price, one can get an Omega co-axial. And what are the key differences?

• Chronometer grade time measurement/reporting -- Tudor no; Omega yes
• Free sprung balance -- Omega co-axial has it; Tudor's ETA Top doesn't. The benefit: vastly more shock resistant timekeeping because impacts can't shift the screws used to adjust timing rates whereas they can jar out of place the levers connected to the balance spring in the Tudor.
• Warranty length -- Tudor 2 years; Omega co-axial 4 years
• Sales and service -- This dimension is probably even, maybe a slight edge to Omega.
  • The Black Bay has access to service via the Rolex service network
  • The Black Bat has ETA-inside which means any watchmaker can deal with it.
  • The Omega requires less frequent recommended servicing in the first place because the things that makes most watches actually need servicing -- lube drying out and friction -- are vastly better in the co-axial escapements which have almost no friction and supposedly no lube required. (Early co-axials still needed a bit of lube; I don't know if the newest ones do.) As a practical matter, and ignoring the makers recommendations which I know many folks do, it's hard to say which has the upper hand. I'm inclined to say the Omega does just based on the physics, but the co-axial escapement hasn't been around for 40 years, as a perfected movement, it hasn't been around for
  • On sales, Omega has a wider network than does Tudor, so it's just easier to buy an Omega.
• Cachet, history and "legendary-ness" of the movement -- Hands down Omega. Why, well the ETA2892 on which the co-axial was based is legendary in its own right. Omega's enhancement of it to create the co-axial movement just ups the ante. The BB comes with the ETA 2824 -- no slouch by any means, but not quite as fine a movement as the 2892 due mainly to its thicker profile, lower shock resistance, and the 2892's always having a bit of decoration whereas the 2894s may or may not have decorative finishing, depending on how it's ordered.
• Overall build quality -- I could quibble on this and that minor feature, but overall, I'd call it even, and I'd do so for just about everything in the mid-range because my usage pattern won't ever find me caring about any individual minor features. The worse that'll happen to my watches is that I may drop them on a stone floor or sidewalk, and all of them are tough enough to survive that, even if they pick up a scratch or dent in the process.

The same sort of comparison can be made with lots of ~$2500 or less watches and an Omega co-axial (new, at discounted prices, not pre-owned). The thing is that at that end of the price spectrum, on objective measures, the co-axial watches win, time and again. That doesn't make the competing watches "not nice," it makes the Omegas nicer.

Subjectively speaking -- looks being foremost among such measures -- it's a different matter; people like what they like for whatever reasons. I myself don't like that the co-axial movements result in a thicker watch, and for the slightly dressier styles of watch I prefer, thicker is less desirable to me than is thinner.

How does that play out for me in terms of selecting a watch? Well, comparing say the Omega Constellation with one of Cartier's bracelet mounted, mid-price watches (Tank or CdC), I'd pick the Omega. Between a Constellation and Nautilus or Royal Oak, I like the looks of each to about the same extent. Now after having had a Constellation for a while, I'll want to have an RO, Cartier or Nautilus, if for no other reason than to have something different looking to wear from time to time.

Someone else might choose one of the Cartiers because they like the look better. The thing is that that person has consciously or unconsciously decided that subjective elements are more important than are objective ones. And, frankly, I decide that from time to time as well, so far be it from me to berate one for doing the same.

Lastly, as the preceding two paragraph allude, buying one nice watch to wear for a very long time, buying one's first nice watch, and buying watches in part as fashion accessories present a different, although somewhat overlapping, set of considerations and each of those buying scenarios rightly weights differently the factors involved.

All the best.

Note:
I don't buy into the "in-house is better because it's in-house" snobbery. I think in-house is better when the in-house-ness includes functional or aesthetic features and benefits that cannot be had in a 3rd party movement. Interestingly, there were a times when Swiss and guild laws prohibited fully-in-house watch production: the era of the Renaissance guilds (http://www.watch-around.com/en/subsc...-crescent.html) and the early 1900s (http://www.watchalyzer.com/education...-and-eta-2892/) There are only a handful -- three I know of for sure -- that remain from the Renaissance-Age of Enlightenment eras, and of them, only one is still the same company entity, owned by the same family that created it.

While I understand your point now, my next question though is where are you finding Omega's that are new with the Co-Axial for $2500? Unless you are talking about the Omegas with the 2500 movement but didn't Omega stop making that a few years ago?

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by K19BMW

While I understand your point now, my next question though is where are you finding Omega's that are new with the Co-Axial for $2500? Unless you are talking about the Omegas with the 2500 movement but didn't Omega stop making that a few years ago?

http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-42410372001001.html
http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-...20-01-001.html
http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-12310352006001.html
http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-21230362001002.html

All the best.

[K19BMW]

Originally Posted by tony20009

http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-42410372001001.html
http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-...20-01-001.html
http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-12310352006001.html
http://www.jomashop.com/omega-watch-21230362001002.html

All the best.

Those have the 2500 movement which they dont make anymore

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by K19BMW

Those have the 2500 movement which they dont make anymore

Yes, that's true, but what's that got to do with it? They are NOS (new, old stock) watches.

All the best.

[K19BMW]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Yes, that's true, but what's that got to do with it? They are NOS (new, old stock) watches.

All the best.

I guess I just wouldnt consider those watches new then. Its like if you buy a 2013 M3 with 0 miles, is that a new car? No it's an old car that is unused. Same with the watch for me. It's an old watch, just unused.

I guess it just depends on how you use the word "new". Im thinking of new vs old and you are thinking of new vs unused. When really the opposite of used is unused, not new.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by K19BMW

I guess I just wouldnt consider those watches new then. Its like if you buy a 2013 M3 with 0 miles, is that a new car? No it's an old car that is unused. Same with the watch for me. It's an old watch, just unused.

I guess it just depends on how you use the word "new". Im thinking of new vs old and you are thinking of new vs unused. When really the opposite of used is unused, not new.

I look at in if the thing comes with (or is eligible for) a new watch, car, appliance, etc. warranty, it's new and my expectations are in accordance with that. If it comes with a used watch, car, appliance, etc. warranty, it's not new, and again, my expectations of how (how well, how long, how reliably, how long before service is needed, etc.) it will perform/serve me are in line with that.

I don't go to a department store and refuse to buy a garment because it's last season's version. I am no different with other stuff. If I expressly want the current version because I care for some reason, then it's a different story. I didn't get the sense from the OP's OP that s/he has any preference re: this or prior season's version of a watch that otherwise looks performs the same way.

All the best.

[1MOREMOD]

My wife defines new as anything she has owned less than 5 minutes. Hey is that new outfit. No I've had it a while. How long? Oh got it yesterday!

[ASAP]

There are people that buy watches for anything other than the way it looks or the brand name? lol