Post by Groundhog66 on Feb 14, 2015 13:48:22 GMT -8
I came across this on another forum, what say you?
"I've been into the Seiko scene for two years now. I've purchased six different Seiko watches. I have come to three conclusions:
Seiko is way over-hyped by fan boys.
Seiko is only really good at dive watches and high-end watches.
They have no aesthetic consistency or identity outside of historically-minded models and Grand Seiko.
Firstly, I am totally underwhelmed by the finishing on the lower and mid-end Seiko models I've owned. I don't think the fan boys who rave about "finishing" know what the word means other than it's abstract enough to not draw criticism and it makes them sound smart. All of the Seikos I have owned that have chapter rings have been misaligned - this includes a $1,000 SBBN015. That isn't acceptable for a watch of that price and SBDX001 is known to have the same issue at $2,000. The stainless steel finishing at the lower-mid tier is honestly equivalent to Invicta (there is a good review on WUS about this) and way over-buffed and cheap looking. The dive watch bezels feel cheap and have a lot of play. And aside from historically-minded models (SKX0173), there is no aesthetic consistency. Most Seiko watches look really generic, derivative, or rootless. Also, all of the American lines are totally embarrassing and ridiculous looking (Le Grand Sport sounds like a bad meme).
In spite all of this, since I have mostly only owned Seikos, I thought what I was getting at these price ranges ($200-$1000) was really the best quality and the best value, that Seiko was really smart and their movements were really reliable and accurate (but really, in the world of cheap autos, why wouldn't you just prefer an ETA?).
Then I started handling and purchasing other watches and I've come to realize that most Seikos are totally outclassed by similar offerings by the more common Swiss competitors. Both Hamilton and Tissot totally outclass the Seiko SARB watches and other offerings in the $300-$900 price range. Seiko's Alpinist does not hold a candle to Hamilton's Khaki Auto. The Visodate outclasses the dressier SARBs. Hold them side by side. The Swatch brands have a decided aesthetic and consistent execution. The Seikos are a hodgepodge. I used to love the SARB033 from what I saw on the internet and then I got one and was really disappointed with how cheap, bright, and blingy it seemed, despite its aesthetic cues that I think are the best that Seiko has to offer.
I love the principled aesthetic that came about with Seiko's philosophy of design in the 1960s with the 44GS. That's like my favorite design of all time. And no doubt, from what I've seen in person in NY, Grand Seiko watches live up the hype. They carry on the authenticity of the company. But everything else falls short.
I much prefer the pedigree and honesty of the Seiko brand and I would be proud to own a Seiko I thought was befitting of its legacy, but everything has not lived up to this expectation.
For a bread-and-butter middle class watch consumer, Seiko doesn't even compare favorably to its domestic rivals. Want a reliable, no-fuss watch? Eco-Drive is superior to Solar and comes in many more pleasing aesthetic options and price levels. Want a rugged digital? Go to Casio. People wonder why Seiko has such shitty brand recognition in the USA and it's because nobody wants a joke "Coutura" on their wrist. Most people aren't going to go out and find a JDM SKX007, and even if they did, they would be scratching their heads as to how exactly it is so superior to their buddy's Invicta, and at least the Invicta doesn't get mocked for being a cereal box brand (however erroneous that may be, it's the popular perception).
I am still probably going to buy a Grand Seiko because it is my favorite watch brand and I love Spring Drive, but everything else is honestly shit. I look at the old Seikos from the 60s and 70s that are now legendary and wonder where the hell they went wrong. You take the name "Seiko" off of half of Seiko's offerings and you would be at a loss as to what it is, but you don't get that sense from competing brands that actually have a good sense of their own identity."
"I've been into the Seiko scene for two years now. I've purchased six different Seiko watches. I have come to three conclusions:
Seiko is way over-hyped by fan boys.
Seiko is only really good at dive watches and high-end watches.
They have no aesthetic consistency or identity outside of historically-minded models and Grand Seiko.
Firstly, I am totally underwhelmed by the finishing on the lower and mid-end Seiko models I've owned. I don't think the fan boys who rave about "finishing" know what the word means other than it's abstract enough to not draw criticism and it makes them sound smart. All of the Seikos I have owned that have chapter rings have been misaligned - this includes a $1,000 SBBN015. That isn't acceptable for a watch of that price and SBDX001 is known to have the same issue at $2,000. The stainless steel finishing at the lower-mid tier is honestly equivalent to Invicta (there is a good review on WUS about this) and way over-buffed and cheap looking. The dive watch bezels feel cheap and have a lot of play. And aside from historically-minded models (SKX0173), there is no aesthetic consistency. Most Seiko watches look really generic, derivative, or rootless. Also, all of the American lines are totally embarrassing and ridiculous looking (Le Grand Sport sounds like a bad meme).
In spite all of this, since I have mostly only owned Seikos, I thought what I was getting at these price ranges ($200-$1000) was really the best quality and the best value, that Seiko was really smart and their movements were really reliable and accurate (but really, in the world of cheap autos, why wouldn't you just prefer an ETA?).
Then I started handling and purchasing other watches and I've come to realize that most Seikos are totally outclassed by similar offerings by the more common Swiss competitors. Both Hamilton and Tissot totally outclass the Seiko SARB watches and other offerings in the $300-$900 price range. Seiko's Alpinist does not hold a candle to Hamilton's Khaki Auto. The Visodate outclasses the dressier SARBs. Hold them side by side. The Swatch brands have a decided aesthetic and consistent execution. The Seikos are a hodgepodge. I used to love the SARB033 from what I saw on the internet and then I got one and was really disappointed with how cheap, bright, and blingy it seemed, despite its aesthetic cues that I think are the best that Seiko has to offer.
I love the principled aesthetic that came about with Seiko's philosophy of design in the 1960s with the 44GS. That's like my favorite design of all time. And no doubt, from what I've seen in person in NY, Grand Seiko watches live up the hype. They carry on the authenticity of the company. But everything else falls short.
I much prefer the pedigree and honesty of the Seiko brand and I would be proud to own a Seiko I thought was befitting of its legacy, but everything has not lived up to this expectation.
For a bread-and-butter middle class watch consumer, Seiko doesn't even compare favorably to its domestic rivals. Want a reliable, no-fuss watch? Eco-Drive is superior to Solar and comes in many more pleasing aesthetic options and price levels. Want a rugged digital? Go to Casio. People wonder why Seiko has such shitty brand recognition in the USA and it's because nobody wants a joke "Coutura" on their wrist. Most people aren't going to go out and find a JDM SKX007, and even if they did, they would be scratching their heads as to how exactly it is so superior to their buddy's Invicta, and at least the Invicta doesn't get mocked for being a cereal box brand (however erroneous that may be, it's the popular perception).
I am still probably going to buy a Grand Seiko because it is my favorite watch brand and I love Spring Drive, but everything else is honestly shit. I look at the old Seikos from the 60s and 70s that are now legendary and wonder where the hell they went wrong. You take the name "Seiko" off of half of Seiko's offerings and you would be at a loss as to what it is, but you don't get that sense from competing brands that actually have a good sense of their own identity."