Re: Rusty Movado
- From: Frank Adam <fajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:29:39 +1000
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:08:32 -0400, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know, but i will still debate that you simply can not put much more
real value into a quartz movement, no matter how complicated the
design bunch would want to make it. The cost of the movement may
increase if done inhouse.. but by what, threefold ? If the public
catches on, the $30 movement in their $5,000 watch will not impress
them any more than a $10 one.
Of course they could use precious metals, or real gems around the edge
of the platinum main plate.. Does anyone want to buy a 76 jewel, two
hand quartz movement ? :-)
> We've had this discussion before but IMHO, selling a steel watch with a $10
>movement for $300+ is a rip off, no matter how you slice it. Yes, Movado is
>right to use ETA movements - they run just fine, but they are not right to
>mark up their costs by 1000%. As we have seen here by how shocked members of
>the public are when they find this out, Movado and the other Swiss makers
>are very careful NOT to publicize the fact that their quartz watches have
>$10 movements. The movement is rightfully thought of as the heart of the
>watch and the item that somehow justifies the high price tag - without the
>movement the watch is just a piece of costume jewelry and no one pays $300
>for a costume jewelry bracelet.
>
--
Regards, Frank
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rusty Movado
- From: Jack Denver
- Re: Rusty Movado
- From: New2watches
- Re: Rusty Movado
- References:
- Rusty Movado
- From: watchddawg
- Re: Rusty Movado
- From: dAz
- Re: Rusty Movado
- From: watchddawg
- Re: Rusty Movado
- From: Frank Adam
- Re: Rusty Movado
- From: Jack Denver
- Rusty Movado
- Prev by Date: Re: Rusty Movado
- Next by Date: Re: Rusty Movado
- Previous by thread: Re: Rusty Movado
- Next by thread: Re: Rusty Movado
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|