6 ms·

The end of the article hints at it, but I think this stuff really represents the "high end" of the fast fashion cycle. You got the logo, and you spent enough mo

The end of the article hints at it, but I think this stuff really represents the "high end" of the fast fashion cycle. You got the logo, and you spent enough money to feel like you've bought something premium, but actually it's low quality, disposable tat. I'm vaguely aware of a lot of this simply due to working with a tracking product for fashion brands, but where I'm really aware of it is with watches, which are a bit of a hobby for me. Notably, brands such as MVMT, Vincero, Daniel Wellington, and Michael Kors, take the cheapest of the cheap quartz movements, case them up - particularly with MVMT and Vincero - in cheap, generic cases, with straps made of the lowest quality materials, slap their logo on, do a ton of fantastic social media marketing, and then chuck on a ridiculous markup to charge sometimes hundreds of dollars or pounds for these effectively disposable time-pieces. MVMT in particular have come in for a lot of flak recently, because people have started calling them out on the fact that you can buy the exact same watch, minus the MVMT logo, on Alibaba for $5 as opposed to $100. Still, overall these brands are absolutely killing it, and aren't having a great effect on more established brands that produce higher quality timepieces. These are brands that offer objectively better products, but aren't nearly as savvy with their marketing: Timex, Seiko, Orient, Citizen, Tissot, Inox, Hamilton, Zeppelin, Junkers, Junghans, and the list goes on. None of these specialise in luxury watches, but in the same price range as the fashion brands they do offer good watches, many extremely stylish, that will last for decades. Premium mediocre might also be the reason that TAG Heuer get such short shrift amongst watch aficionados. They're nominally a luxury brand, and they certainly do make some decent timepieces. For example, the Monaco is a classic and - for a horology geek - their high end chronographs are seriously impressive (and way the hell above my price range). Nevertheless, you really get ripped off on TAG's entry level quartz pieces. These are still kind of pricey, but the quality isn't there. For example, they will cheerfully charge you well north of £1000 for a quartz Aquaracer with a misaligned second hand. Not OK, but a lot of people buy into it because it makes a TAG Heuer attainable.

dmreedy 8y ago
What's interesting about brands like MVMT and Daniel Wellington in particular is that it's not like they ever produced actual 'quality' stuff. Unlike a lot of the brands in the article, where the 'premium mediocre' stuff is a kind of brand dilution from prohibitively expensive luxury stuff, MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap the illusion of being quality without ever having had to put up the work for it. I guess it's made possible by some combination of what traditionally makes for a quality watch being somewhat opaque to a non-geek consumer (not that it's hard, it's just not something most people feel like spending time learning about), and the traditional definition of quality of watches moving away from functional timekeeping and towards fashion accessory (you can see this with Rolex too, as they start to move up-market). This in contrast to TAG Heuer, which is much closer I think to the article's subject. Before TAG bought them, Heuer produced a number of absolute classics (such as the Monaco you mention) that they're only just getting back around to continuing now, with the current theme of vintage styling being hip again (something I am, don't get me wrong, grateful for!). But to your point, for a while, TAG tried to get by on brand alone, and sold a lot of relatively low-quality stuff at almost-luxury prices. There is a possible means, however, by which this kind of process drives the genuine premium market. Some set of customers who buy a DW are gonna wear it and love it for a week, and then start to get pissed off as they find out that the cheap plating rubs off, or the applied indicies aren't applied so well and are rattling around under the crystal now, or that it loses 30 seconds a day. They'll start learning about actual quality differentiators, maybe geek out a bit if they are that type, be bothered they blew $300 on a $5 watch, but maybe next time around they buy a Tissot, or a Seiko. And then an Omega after that. And it's possible I guess that the number of people who go through this process is larger than if there were no such 'premium mediocre' market at all?
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  > MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap MVMT and the like have come about due to forums and blogs. there’s no somehow about it. as mid market buyers have flocked to places where they can display and discuss their wares, MVMT etc have sprung up in symbiotic fashion.
roymurdock 8y ago
interesting to consider how much an average consumer cares about the "quality" of a new watch they are buying today unless you're buying a dive computer or ruggedized/solar-powered wrist GPS, you don't need a watch. you have an infinitely more accurate and powerful device in your pocket that fulfills the same function of telling time x 1000000 other applications time-telling watches are now 100% a status symbol, heirloom, and/or enthusiast good brand is and will become that much more important as the old school "quality" collectors and wearers die out and are replaced by brand/social signaling watch consumers same to a lesser extent with clothing - you're sitting in an air conditioned office or car or your home for most of the day, but it's a powerful expression of who you are and what you can afford when you wear your new balenciaga sneakers out to drinks on friday night and pull out your $5 branded bic lighter. mediocre quality is good enough because our environment is so tame, brand is everything
- qu4z-2 8y ago
  I still find a watch more convenient than pulling out my phone.
- Invictus0 8y ago
  I don't think this is really a fair assessment. Watches have always been a luxury good and a fashion statement, despite also varying in quality and price. Quartz watches are still a relatively recent development: before then, watches were the realm of highly skilled craftsmen. I don't think anyone shops for watches based on the accuracy of the timekeeping: shoppers expect that all watch brands keep time roughly equally, and make purchases based on branding and design.
- austhrow743 8y ago
  Quartz watches have been the pragmatic time telling choice for decades. More accurate and cheaper than mechanical. Plenty, possibly the majority, of watch enthusiasts today have never experienced a time when their mechanical watch was simply a practical tool. So I can't see people who care about quality dying out.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
golemiprague 8y ago
People don't really need watches, you got everything you need on your phone, a watch is purely status signalling fashion accessory and as such the quality doesn't matter, just the brand, the design and the price. You might get the same design from a no brand piece and you might get the quality from non status signalling brands but you want get the recognition of your status which is the most important thing you pay for.
- skellera 8y ago
  I don’t get where this mindset comes from. I love my watch for the purpose of telling time. Phones are a distraction and the less time I can get caught in that, the better. I had the same mindset until my boss told me it was better to look at your watch in front of a client than your phone. That got me to switch but it’s so much better at doing the job it does than a phone. Just turn your wrist and you can see the time.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Exactly. There are at least two wholly practical reasons to wear a watch (and a conventional watch is actually better than a smartwatch for the second). It doesn't require my fishing a phone out my pocket especially if it's cold, rainy, etc. It's easier, as your boss suggested, to casually look at the time out of the corner of your eye in a meeting, presentation, etc. than it is to see it on your phone--especially if the phone is turned over as is often the custom in meetings.
- bartread 8y ago
  > People don't really need watches, you got everything you need on your phone, a watch is purely status signalling fashion accessory and as such the quality doesn't matter, just the brand, the design and the price. No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! 1) A watch has a useful function: telling the time. And it performs this without the need for me to get my phone out. 2) Quality is important: I don't want everything I own to be disposable, and I don't like things that malfunction, break down, or otherwise stop working when subjected to the stresses and strains of normal life. In fact I prefer to buy high quality items that I enjoy and that will last for many years. Apart from anything else it's simply more sustainable than buying crap.
hevi_jos 8y ago
Who cares about clock movements today? When everybody has a GPS on their phone they have automatic synchronization with satellite atomic clocks. As a matter of fact there is redundancy with connection to cell towers and Internet that also syncs the clocks with atomic clocks. What happens is that with tech advancement the main utility of clocks had disappeared like photography killed the utility of painters as recorders of visual information. Photography created impressionism first, then cubism and ended in absurd paintings like "White over white"(empty canvas)selling for hundred of thousands of dollars, color dots for tens of millions and so on. People selling clocks will do it for different reasons that in the past, like signaling that you have so much money you don't care about wasting it.
joncrane 8y ago
Aren't watches anachronistic, though? It's basically a fashion statement rather than a functional timepiece; we're surrounded by devices that can tell the time for us. A watch's only purpose is wealth/fashion signalling. I haven't worn a watch since I started carrying a cell phone and it perplexes me why they are still so popular.
- bigiain 8y ago
  "I can see by my watch, without taking my hand from the left grip of the cycle, that it is eight-thirty in the morning. The wind, even at sixty miles an hour, is warm and humid. When it’s this hot and muggy at eight-thirty, I’m wondering what it’s going to be like in the afternoon." -- zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, robert m. pirsig For some people, there are some times when a watch is _way_ more useful than that phone in their pocket... (Also, I can trust my 1962 vintage mechanical watch to not be silently tracking me and selling me out to advertising companies...)
  - ValentineC 8y ago
    > I can see by my watch, without taking my hand from the left grip of the cycle, that it is eight-thirty in the morning. Not having to rotate my arm to see the time was one big reason I got an always-on transflective LCD smartwatch (mine's the Amazfit Bip) instead of say, an Apple Watch.
  - screye 8y ago
    I think the OP was talking about quality differences on watches than the utility of a watch itself. A 10$ watch does everything the $1000 watch does. The $990 are purely a fashion statement. The quartz being low quality doesn't affect the usability of the watch in anyway. If anything, the cheap digital watch with silicone straps is the e most comfortable and fuctional of all watches. This is unlike clothing, where the 300$ suit or jacket does often have genuinely better fit, comfort and lasts longer.
- ghaff 8y ago
  >It's basically a fashion statement For some. I like having a watch on my wrist where I can glance at the time rather than taking out my cell phone. I do have an Apple Watch but, especially when traveling, I often just wear a $30 Timex because I don't need to charge it. I see a lot of cheap watches in the store so I'm guessing I'm not alone. A lot of people these days also wear fitness bands of one sort or another. I suppose you could consider those fashion statements in their own right.
Aloha 8y ago
Yeah, I always cringe at those, before I got a Smart Watch, I was a loyal user of the Seiko V - its an inexpensive mechanical watch, very durable, classically styled, and in my opinion, a more reliable time keeper than a Rolex (for much less money, and with much less brand status).
rajacombinator 8y ago
Does anyone actually buy MVMT watches? Are millennials really that dumb? Or did they just fake it till they make it really hard? Did their acquirers audit the sales?

dmreedy 8y ago

What's interesting about brands like MVMT and Daniel Wellington in particular is that it's not like they ever produced actual 'quality' stuff. Unlike a lot of the brands in the article, where the 'premium mediocre' stuff is a kind of brand dilution from prohibitively expensive luxury stuff, MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap the illusion of being quality without ever having had to put up the work for it. I guess it's made possible by some combination of what traditionally makes for a quality watch being somewhat opaque to a non-geek consumer (not that it's hard, it's just not something most people feel like spending time learning about), and the traditional definition of quality of watches moving away from functional timekeeping and towards fashion accessory (you can see this with Rolex too, as they start to move up-market). This in contrast to TAG Heuer, which is much closer I think to the article's subject. Before TAG bought them, Heuer produced a number of absolute classics (such as the Monaco you mention) that they're only just getting back around to continuing now, with the current theme of vintage styling being hip again (something I am, don't get me wrong, grateful for!). But to your point, for a while, TAG tried to get by on brand alone, and sold a lot of relatively low-quality stuff at almost-luxury prices. There is a possible means, however, by which this kind of process drives the genuine premium market. Some set of customers who buy a DW are gonna wear it and love it for a week, and then start to get pissed off as they find out that the cheap plating rubs off, or the applied indicies aren't applied so well and are rattling around under the crystal now, or that it loses 30 seconds a day. They'll start learning about actual quality differentiators, maybe geek out a bit if they are that type, be bothered they blew $300 on a $5 watch, but maybe next time around they buy a Tissot, or a Seiko. And then an Omega after that. And it's possible I guess that the number of people who go through this process is larger than if there were no such 'premium mediocre' market at all?

jiveturkey 8y ago
> MVMT and DW somehow managed to bootstrap MVMT and the like have come about due to forums and blogs. there’s no somehow about it. as mid market buyers have flocked to places where they can display and discuss their wares, MVMT etc have sprung up in symbiotic fashion.

roymurdock 8y ago

interesting to consider how much an average consumer cares about the "quality" of a new watch they are buying today unless you're buying a dive computer or ruggedized/solar-powered wrist GPS, you don't need a watch. you have an infinitely more accurate and powerful device in your pocket that fulfills the same function of telling time x 1000000 other applications time-telling watches are now 100% a status symbol, heirloom, and/or enthusiast good brand is and will become that much more important as the old school "quality" collectors and wearers die out and are replaced by brand/social signaling watch consumers same to a lesser extent with clothing - you're sitting in an air conditioned office or car or your home for most of the day, but it's a powerful expression of who you are and what you can afford when you wear your new balenciaga sneakers out to drinks on friday night and pull out your $5 branded bic lighter. mediocre quality is good enough because our environment is so tame, brand is everything

qu4z-2 8y ago
I still find a watch more convenient than pulling out my phone.
Invictus0 8y ago
I don't think this is really a fair assessment. Watches have always been a luxury good and a fashion statement, despite also varying in quality and price. Quartz watches are still a relatively recent development: before then, watches were the realm of highly skilled craftsmen. I don't think anyone shops for watches based on the accuracy of the timekeeping: shoppers expect that all watch brands keep time roughly equally, and make purchases based on branding and design.
austhrow743 8y ago
Quartz watches have been the pragmatic time telling choice for decades. More accurate and cheaper than mechanical. Plenty, possibly the majority, of watch enthusiasts today have never experienced a time when their mechanical watch was simply a practical tool. So I can't see people who care about quality dying out.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

golemiprague 8y ago

People don't really need watches, you got everything you need on your phone, a watch is purely status signalling fashion accessory and as such the quality doesn't matter, just the brand, the design and the price. You might get the same design from a no brand piece and you might get the quality from non status signalling brands but you want get the recognition of your status which is the most important thing you pay for.

skellera 8y ago
I don’t get where this mindset comes from. I love my watch for the purpose of telling time. Phones are a distraction and the less time I can get caught in that, the better. I had the same mindset until my boss told me it was better to look at your watch in front of a client than your phone. That got me to switch but it’s so much better at doing the job it does than a phone. Just turn your wrist and you can see the time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Exactly. There are at least two wholly practical reasons to wear a watch (and a conventional watch is actually better than a smartwatch for the second). It doesn't require my fishing a phone out my pocket especially if it's cold, rainy, etc. It's easier, as your boss suggested, to casually look at the time out of the corner of your eye in a meeting, presentation, etc. than it is to see it on your phone--especially if the phone is turned over as is often the custom in meetings.
bartread 8y ago
> People don't really need watches, you got everything you need on your phone, a watch is purely status signalling fashion accessory and as such the quality doesn't matter, just the brand, the design and the price. No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! 1) A watch has a useful function: telling the time. And it performs this without the need for me to get my phone out. 2) Quality is important: I don't want everything I own to be disposable, and I don't like things that malfunction, break down, or otherwise stop working when subjected to the stresses and strains of normal life. In fact I prefer to buy high quality items that I enjoy and that will last for many years. Apart from anything else it's simply more sustainable than buying crap.

hevi_jos 8y ago

Who cares about clock movements today? When everybody has a GPS on their phone they have automatic synchronization with satellite atomic clocks. As a matter of fact there is redundancy with connection to cell towers and Internet that also syncs the clocks with atomic clocks. What happens is that with tech advancement the main utility of clocks had disappeared like photography killed the utility of painters as recorders of visual information. Photography created impressionism first, then cubism and ended in absurd paintings like "White over white"(empty canvas)selling for hundred of thousands of dollars, color dots for tens of millions and so on. People selling clocks will do it for different reasons that in the past, like signaling that you have so much money you don't care about wasting it.

joncrane 8y ago

Aren't watches anachronistic, though? It's basically a fashion statement rather than a functional timepiece; we're surrounded by devices that can tell the time for us. A watch's only purpose is wealth/fashion signalling. I haven't worn a watch since I started carrying a cell phone and it perplexes me why they are still so popular.

bigiain 8y ago
"I can see by my watch, without taking my hand from the left grip of the cycle, that it is eight-thirty in the morning. The wind, even at sixty miles an hour, is warm and humid. When it’s this hot and muggy at eight-thirty, I’m wondering what it’s going to be like in the afternoon." -- zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, robert m. pirsig For some people, there are some times when a watch is _way_ more useful than that phone in their pocket... (Also, I can trust my 1962 vintage mechanical watch to not be silently tracking me and selling me out to advertising companies...)
- ValentineC 8y ago
  > I can see by my watch, without taking my hand from the left grip of the cycle, that it is eight-thirty in the morning. Not having to rotate my arm to see the time was one big reason I got an always-on transflective LCD smartwatch (mine's the Amazfit Bip) instead of say, an Apple Watch.
- screye 8y ago
  I think the OP was talking about quality differences on watches than the utility of a watch itself. A 10$ watch does everything the $1000 watch does. The $990 are purely a fashion statement. The quartz being low quality doesn't affect the usability of the watch in anyway. If anything, the cheap digital watch with silicone straps is the e most comfortable and fuctional of all watches. This is unlike clothing, where the 300$ suit or jacket does often have genuinely better fit, comfort and lasts longer.
ghaff 8y ago
>It's basically a fashion statement For some. I like having a watch on my wrist where I can glance at the time rather than taking out my cell phone. I do have an Apple Watch but, especially when traveling, I often just wear a $30 Timex because I don't need to charge it. I see a lot of cheap watches in the store so I'm guessing I'm not alone. A lot of people these days also wear fitness bands of one sort or another. I suppose you could consider those fashion statements in their own right.

Aloha 8y ago

Yeah, I always cringe at those, before I got a Smart Watch, I was a loyal user of the Seiko V - its an inexpensive mechanical watch, very durable, classically styled, and in my opinion, a more reliable time keeper than a Rolex (for much less money, and with much less brand status).

rajacombinator 8y ago

Does anyone actually buy MVMT watches? Are millennials really that dumb? Or did they just fake it till they make it really hard? Did their acquirers audit the sales?