I have always loved watches. From the time I was young, I loved the different styles and colors, chronographs vs. dress; hell, I even loved pocket watches. But, it wasn’t until recently that I started to appreciate the engineering that goes into making a quality watch. 

Luckily, I get to hang out with the creator of spazz.com on a regular basis, so I get schooled on the in”s-and-out’s of a variety of different watches. There is so much to learn and understand, and I am taking it all in little by little. 

So, I decided to write this article to help others like me - the guys who love quality watches but don’t have the money to buy the best of the best. The good news is that you don’t always have to buy the best; just buy the best in the range that you can afford. 

“A fool and his money are soon parted.”

That is a famous proverb that seems to be the foundation of the marketing used by watch brands today. In other words, for better or worse, despite the absolute fact that watches are machines, tools, instruments of time, etc., watch brands want us to view and judge watches subjectively like jewelry. This is how you end up with gold dive watches, for example, and people foolish enough to buy them.

Yesterday, April 26, 2017, the Foundation de la Haute Horlogerie (FHH) released a white paper on “Fine Watchmaking”. In short, the white paper was created to promote what they’re calling “Fine Watchmaking”, and they defined 4 market segments and 7 areas of expertise by which 46 “independent international experts” used to judge brands against. These people make up what they’re calling the “Cultural Council”. For a watch to be qualified it must score at least 60% where 65% of the score is objective and 35% is subjective.

In total, 86 brands were judged, 68 made the cut, and only 28 were so good they became partners.

Every year we have our "new year's resolutions", but given the holiday season has just ended, which is always filled with the standard commercialism and retail therapy, I thought it might be worthwhile to give my perspective on the subject. Specifically when we refer to a certain type of spending as "materialism" - this ties in nicely with the watch world, since 2016 was officially the worst year on record since the early 80's!

First, what is materialism?

It has now become common knowledge that this past year has been one of the worst on record for the watch industry. Data released by Bloomberg and the FHS (Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH) show that sales have dropped over 45% between 2015 and 2016, and the level of Switzerland’s watch exports dropped 11 percent during the first 10 months of the year.

A little while ago I put together 'The Ultimate Watch Collection'. A collection where money is no object.

But, what if money is an object?

In other words, if we wanted to build a watch collection of 'attainable' watches, where attainable isn't necessarily cheap, but that a person making an average salary could, with time, save up to buy at least a couple, what would that look like?

Well, I'm about to tell you (in no particular order), and yes there are watches in this list that overlap with the "ultimate watch collection", and thats because money isn't everything.

I am literally beside myself when I browse around online, or happen to stumble upon conversations regarding watches by so called “experts”. The amount of junk thats out there dressed up as fact, when in reality is nothing more than some self-perpetuation prophecy designed to mold and shape public opinion in a particular direction is sickening.

It’s as if over time everything has been turned on its head. What used to be considered important is now less so and vice versa. A whole new formula has been created and passed around, which is then used by those receiving this “advice” against their own interests.

At Spazz.com we call those responsible Horological Douchebags (“HDs”). They don’t want you to think for yourself using logic, but rather they want you to trust them blindly. They’ve “been there”, so they "know of the mistakes" they don’t want you to make (wink wink).

But you still have a brain, don’t you?

A watch's primary function is to tell us what time it is. This is why telling the time is not considered a "complication".

But anything beyond that is.

And some complications are much more difficult to make than others. And combining more than one of these complications into one watch is absolutely spectacular, hence, it's own category: Grand Complications (minimum 3 complications to qualify).

But even doing one of these things well is a challenge, and making them all, even in individual watches make for quite the repertoire.

Today, a convenient summary!

I think the following summary, in chart form should be a lot of fun. And as you will see, it makes it real easy to visualize alternative combinations. I.e., if you prefer the Calatrava to the Reverso, cool. In your personal chart/list, you could just swap them, and it'd still make sense...

It's inconceivable to think that this category didn't even exist until the 1970s.

Up to that time, Stainless Steel was used in the typical "Tool" or "Dive" watches. Dress watches were also made in stainless steel, but then those would never have been considered "luxury" dress watches.

So, when Audemars Piguet decided to create a new watch, one that would deserve to be called an Audemars Piguet, one that would merge "Sport" and "Luxury", and in essence create a whole new category of watch, a Stainless Steel case must have been an obvious choice.

But, given the fact the future of the company (arguably) hung in the balance of this "new watch", it must have also been tense times at AP.

If you've ever caught the bug to collect watches, or if you're a watch lover in general, the question of what would be the ultimate watch collection always comes up. And this is true even if you never actually end up owning that collection ($$$$).

And many blogs and publications have written about this subject. The truth is, it's fun!

For the most part, owning such a collection is just a dream. There aren't too many people (or their wives) who can justify more than a couple "great" watches let alone anything close to an 'ultimate watch collection'.

But again, it's fun to even discuss it.

And when considering the ultimate collection, how to determine the logic behind the collection, or the theme, can be just as difficult. I'd say there is never a shortage of collection themes.

Traditionally speaking, a trio of watch brands from Switzerland have been referred to as the "Holy Trinity" of watch brands.

They are:

• Patek Philippe (PP)
• Audemars Piguet (AP)
• Vacheron Constantin (VC)

...and the 'plus 1', has always been Jaeger LeCoultre.

But referring to Jaeger LeCoultre (JLC) as a 'plus 1', is not giving JLC the proper respect it deserves. Because in many ways, JLC not only belongs in that group, it could be argued that group wouldn't even exist if it weren't for JLC.

COSC (Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres) is the Official Swiss Chronometer Testing Institute, which certifies a wristwatch for accuracy and precision, but does so according to standards established up to 1973.

There are other institutes that provide the same function, but the most important detail as it pertains to truly understanding accuracy, is that all of the truly high-end manufacturers have abandoned these certifications because their own in-house standards far and away surpass the COSC standard (and the like).

This is important for the following reason: many companies -- Rolex in particular -- not only have not abandoned the COSC, but use the fact that others have as a way to market their movements as being "better than" the rest, when in fact the opposite is (closer to being) true.

The main issue, in general, when it comes to the watch industry today is that many brands that once were relevant, no longer are. And it's become increasingly difficult to decipher between the true horologically relevant watch brands and the pretenders.

Whats worse, many pretenders were once at the pinnacle of haute horology, so it can get tricky. 

So, here's a list of criteria that all truly high-end brand/watch will meet. If a brand or watch does not meet all of the criteria, regardless of how much it costs, I'm here to tell you to walk away. You have better options

Speaking of icons, has there ever been any watch more iconic than the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak?

Nope, I didn't think so. 

But to understand why, we really need to go back in time. Back to the early 1970's when the watch industry was just coming out of it's golden era, and about to enter into its darkest (the Quartz crisis).

Audemars Piguet, one of the fabled 'Holy Trinity' of Swiss watch companies needed to make a change and what they wanted was to shake things up.

To do this, they asked Gérald Genta (whom had been designing their watches since the early 50's), to design a luxury sport watch. The result, the ultra thin Royal Oak.