Meet Kristian Haagen, self-described “middle-aged watch collector” and author of eight watch books, a man with 156,000 followers keen to know his latest watch-related thoughts. “I came late to being an influencer and, really, being one wasn’t anything I thought I should be proud of. My privilege is that I get to talk only about watches, which is a very niche product”. In fact, it is all a bit odd, he says: “You buy a watch and talk about it, and other people buy the same watch. That's strange.”

Haagen may find the whole thing amusing and bemusing but the rising relevance of social media and, more specifically, its particular enthusiasts for different subjects – the so-called influencers of Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok (each platform seemingly replacing the former) – is challenging the way marketing is done across many lifestyle-oriented industries. While that might sound like it has little or nothing to do with watches, the evidence suggests otherwise.

“In fact, Instagram has changed everything about the way watches are marketed,” Haagen contends. “If the cool gang on social media says a watch has to be 34mm, or whatever, that’s the way the market moves. And I’m influenced by that as well. Suddenly I feel uncool in a larger watch.”

Impressive Reach

Daniel Wellington is an oft-cited test case in the role of influencers in the watch world: the company’s founder Filip Tysander built his entire brand off the back of Instagram when it launched in 2010 – reaching out to multiple influencers, before they were even called such, and offering them free products and trackable promo codes to share, then repurposing their content in his brand’s advertising campaigns. Within three years, he was selling US$228m of watches.

Sure, with its relatively cheap production costs, Daniel Wellington could afford to give watches away. But it was some kind of lesson learned. Small wonder that much bigger brands the likes of TAG Heuer, Hublot, Audemars Piguet and IWC now, years later, collaborate with influencers on TikTok, with IWC being the first luxury watch brand to host a live stream event on the channel last year.

Certainly, the reach of influencers – notably those with the leverage of genuine subject knowledge and a personal rapport with engaged followers – can impress. When Robert-Jan Broer, founder of Fratello Watches, created the hashtag ‘speedytuesday’ on Facebook back in 2012, in celebration of Omega’s Speedmaster, it would go on to spawn an entire movement of fans, as well as events held around the globe and two limited-edition watches, one of which was produced in 2,012 units and sold out in four hours. The hashtag has since been used on Instagram more than 400,000 times. Its impact is still felt today, arguably.

Conservative Resistance

“It really took off like crazy,” says Broer. “But, importantly, it was all very genuine, just a community of like-minded Speedmaster enthusiasts and an idea that ran away with itself. Of course, Fratello was approached by other reputable brands after to do the same thing but [the proposals] felt made up and didn’t make sense to me, whereas I’ve collected Speedmasters for 20 years.”

And yet, for many at the higher end of the watch business – especially maybe those self-consciously positioning themselves as makers of ‘luxury products’ – there would appear to remain a deeply embedded reluctance to dip more than a toe into the influencer world. That may simply be down them being, as Haagen puts it, part of “the most conservative business in the world, selling a product that nobody needs.”

But Juerg Hostettler, influencer and founder of Brandfluence, a brand agency that has worked with the likes of Fortis, as well as Sony and Mercedes, is nonetheless surprised by just how little watch content there is put out by influencers, at least relative to other subjects. Some brands, he reckons, are still comfortable targeting an older demographic and see no reason to get into bed with influencers. Others he wonders “perhaps just don’t understand [the influencer world] yet. That encourages them to think they don’t need it.”

Fast Food Not Fine Dining

That reluctance may stem from a mismatch between what many watch brands deem to be central to their public image – their savoir-faire, their history, their complex micro-mechanics, all of which might require longer and deeper forms of media to cover well, and which the earlier watch blogs and forums did so well, sometimes to a scholarly extent; and what the dominant social media thrives on – lower-quality content, but snappier, instant-impact, quickly replaced, shareable and above all accessible coverage with an exponentially larger reach. Fast food as opposed to fine-dining, maybe.

“It’s why what [watch influencers] thrive on is a love of shape, not of complications,” argues Haagen. “One reason Cartier is doing so well now is that its products are all about shapes. It’s that simple.” Of course, as Haagen himself notes, that is only one reason so those of you who might be foaming at the mouth, given the overwhelming preference for round watches noted by, well everyone, should consider a muscle relaxant at this point.

Moving on, the nature of social media is maybe also why, given the algorithms at work, it skews towards the same kind of watch content. Even the same kind of watches, suggesting a trend – for steel sports watches, for example – or a spike in the desirability of a certain model has come up organically when actually it has been generated through data mining.

Desensitised and Devalued

“There's a huge issue here. While influencers have been good for building communities around what are, after all, a very specialist interest I think [the influencer ecosystem] has driven demand for certain models,” argues Justin Hast, Youtuber, regular IWC collaborator and publisher of ‘The Watch Annual’. “This distorts our view of a watch – you see one everywhere on social media, a (Patek Philippe) Nautilus, for example, but how often do you actually see anyone wearing one (in real life)? I think we become desensitised to models we see too much, which devalues them in some way I think”.

But there is also a tonal disparity: high-end watch brands are, on the whole, sober and often somewhat pompous. Instagram, and especially the new frontier of TikTok, often takes a more irreverent, humorous, playful, ironic and sometimes anarchic point of view. Check out the Horological Dictionary, for example; one recent, and relatively tame, post on Jaeger-LeCoultre introduces it as “a rare and exciting glimpse into the world’s most respected and least pronounceable watchmaker.”

Collectors will sneer at this, noting that Jaeger-LeCoultre is just as difficult to know how to pronounce as A. Lange & Söhne, Ulysse Nardin, or Vacheron Constantin. Or how about Bvlgari, which insists on this specific spelling? Even Tissot and Hublot, with two-syllable names, can be challenging for the English-speaking world, and we have not even addressed how watch brand names are presented in Chinese. On that note about Hublot though...

"The influencer world is the Wild West,
and the train going there has already departed"

Losing Control

Some social media accounts allow you to see a twenty-something flipping watches in a train station carpark or horological savant Nico Vanderhost’s latest entertaining takedown of celebrity watch collections. And this kind of thing reaches millions. But that loss of control of the narrative is something a deeply conservative industry has, to date, rarely been at ease with.

“The problem is that [many of the top brands] are stuck in this idea of a very polished, perfect world,” says Maxime Couturier, co-founder of brand marketing agency Apresdemain. It has worked with the likes of the Fondation Haute Horlogerie and Girard-Perregaux, and last year launched ‘Heist Out’, an underground, dissident watch magazine. “(Influencers) can be an amazing tool to grow interest in watches, and to connect collectors, but (the industry) needs to get beyond its image as always being an expensive-looking guy in a Patek. It needs to break those long-established codes, as the fashion industry has managed to do”.

“What [many major watch industry brands] think [is happening] doesn’t correspond to what’s actually happening online,” adds his business partner Lorenzo Maillard. “They have this idea that if you put a watch next to a tracksuit then viewers won’t get that their product is 100 percent luxury anymore. It’s crazy to me how brands have constrained themselves. It’s not as though consumers are asking for this exclusivity, this luxury lifestyle image.”

Breaking Free

Some, perhaps, are taking the hint. Cartier’s own Instagram account, which it launched in 2022, for example, has a decidedly less polished feel relative to its normally high-gloss marketing. It affords Cartier a different kind of cool – more Tiong Bahru, less Orchard Road.

Certainly, while social media has had a powerful impact on the way second-hand watches are bought and sold, on the fostering of the vintage market, and of meet-ups by watch-loving community groups, arguably it is influencers who will have the greater impact in changing how watches are perceived, and, some say, for the better.

Influencers argue, as they might, that breaking free of these constraints can only be a good thing for the watch industry, ripping watch appreciation out of the confines of haughty sales staff, beige boutiques and manufactured exclusivity, and making it much more diverse, more everyday, more fun and much more appealing to demographics the industry has been tardy to embrace: younger, fashion-conscious people, and women, such as those focused on by Instagram influencer Brynn Waller under the name of Dimepiece. This is precisely the demographic more likely to follow influencers of course.

"I do think that maybe the whole influencer
thing has gone too far - Don Cochrane, Vertex"

Beyond The Old Boys Club

“What’s really shifting, importantly, as a result of influencers is that [an interest in watches] is becoming more open as a hobby – it’s not just an old boys network talking about luxury Swiss watches,” argues Lydia Winters, who only discovered her passion for watches five years ago and now shares her watch photography with her many Instagram followers and ‘This Watch Life’ podcast. She argues that influencers especially have become a gateway to watches for a younger audience that – depending on the study you read – is in serious danger of losing all interest in watches.

“There are some people who still get excited about the more traditional technical aspects [of a watch]. But there are more and more influencers now reaching out to the even younger TikTok generation and saying, for example, that a watch can be Quartz, and that that’s ok," she adds. "They’re reaching out with an enthusiasm for watch design, or with stories about why they chose the watch they have. With an industry that has been far too serious for too long, they’re making watches joyful and whimsical again”.

While that might sound shockingly naïve, it is still informative and speaks to certain undeniable truths, although perhaps not the ones openly stated there. After all, influencers have proven key to the profile of independent watchmakers and the watch micro brands sector – those without the budgets to buy pages in glossy magazines, or to sign a contract with a Hollywood star, but often with the kind of visually arresting or unusual products for which the likes of Instagram is ideal. “I don’t think the whole micro-brand thing would have happened without them providing the necessary exposure,” says Lewis Heath, founder of AnOrdain and Paulin.

Independence is Power

So, are the more mainstream brands just moving too slowly? Some 15 years ago, digital watch platforms were shunned; now some are brands in their own right, and watch brands are keen on collaborating. But there remains a troubling sense... Yes, the more rough-and-tumble, quick-change world of social media and its influencers is a train that the watch brands need to board but it also has a destination they are not sure about. It may be reading between the lines, but of five major names in watches approached for comment about their attitude to influencers for this article, five found reasons not to comment.

Perhaps they are right to keep their cards close to their chest. As it is often described, the world of influencers is a ‘Wild West’ right now. And that influencer train? It may have already departed. Yes, influencers have arguably pushed brands to new levels of accountability for the quality of their products. They can act as an independent press, ridiculing your new watch while print media – dependent on advertising spent – reliably toe the line; this is not to say influencers of the sort cited here cannot be bought, but the watch collector with a sizeable following often cannot. “The collector community can be visceral and will come down on a brand very heavily if it thinks it’s doing something wrong,” as Hast notes. That is not something luxury brands are used to – even the old frontier of the collectors’ forum did not have the same reach. Its influence was limited, in other words.

On the other hand, as Broer notes, the influencer ecosystem, and its appeal to watch brands, seems to be bifurcating between influencers who are, as he puts it, “watch people, who have an emotional connection to the products”, and the growing army of “professional influencers” who are ready to push any product, watches included, often without revealing the deal that lies behind their enthusiasm; the ones, as Hast jokes, who seem to spend a lot of their time with their tops off standing by swimming pools.

Inconclusive Results

“There are those watch enthusiasts, but most influencers seem willing to [promote] just about anything. I stopped looking at social media about three years ago because I was getting too annoyed at all the things that weren’t accurate or were just made up,” says Paulin’s Heath, who is not yet convinced that influencers have much real commercial affect, not least because he suspects nowhere near as many people with the disposable income to buy a good watch are on social media as regularly as is often suggested.

“We had a lot of people on Instagram talking about how great our watches were and that didn’t seem to actually sell anything. Then we got a product review [on an online magazine] and sold 20 that weekend,” he notes.

If once influencers proposed a fresh alternative to traditional advertising and sponsorship, with its unabashed but dated kind of self-promotion, influencers already can look similarly tainted. This means both those who take the money and, unfortunately, those that do not. Clearly, regular users of unregulated social media are increasingly savvy to the financial dynamic that underpins many influencers’ relationships with watch companies: that they are paid, one way or another, to post positive comments or reviews.

Hardening Doubts

Kristian Haagen concedes that he has at times been pressured by watch brands, which shall remain nameless, to make changes to his posts or to push some aspect they were more keen to promote. His honest response? “I’m a softy on that,” he laughs. “There have been heated moments but I’d rather we all stayed good friends. Maybe they think I did something wrong? So I’ll change it. We have to remember here that we’re just talking about watches, not saving the world. And I think that the public isn’t stupid, thankfully – people know that influencers are another marketing channel and we shouldn’t forget that.”

Indeed, that is the way Don Cochrane, founder of Vertex, tends to think about it. As a small brand, it has a small marketing budget. He does not court influencers but, on rare occasions, he has given away a watch and, he says, it feels much the same as buying an ad in a publication.

“But I do think that maybe the whole influencer thing has already gone too far,” he says. “It’s reached saturation point, so it’s hard to get above all the chatter,” he says. “If we were to use an influencer it would be hard to know who that person would be, because it’s about finding people with real traction with their audience, and for us that may not be as simple as connoisseur watch collectors. I think my doubts about influencers will only harden.”

Finding The Right Fit

"There’s already a weariness about the relationship between brand and influencers setting in. My kids, 14 and 18, are very much fed up with posts that have obviously been paid for and don’t seem a good fit," agrees Hostettler. “Social media and many influencers on it remain a great way to research watches or to find out more about one you might already be thinking about buying. But for me it’s not a good place from which to take recommendations, especially those you haven’t asked for. That’s rightly causing suspicion”.

That means that those watch brands now warming to the idea of tapping influencers need to tread carefully. Justin Hast puts up a spirited defence of the right kind of relationship, one with that ‘good fit’. “Of course, the right collaboration between a big brand and an enthusiast who loves the brand, with whom it’s had a long relationship and whom the audience trusts makes perfect commercial sense,” he says, “just as to simply chase an influencer because they have big numbers doesn’t.”

“What I think we’re actually seeing now is a big shake-up, a shift away from platforms that haven’t honoured their audience with truly passionate and authoritative content,” he adds. "The influencers that resonate are those that bring people into the conversation. That can only be a good thing for both sides."

This article first appeared in WOW’s Legacy Issue #75

For more on the latest in luxury watch reads from WOW, click here.

Nicholas Bowman-Scargill wants to draw your attention to the Alliance 01 jumping hour watch. It is a model launched earlier this year and made in partnership between Fears, the watch brand he founded, and fellow British watch company Christopher Ward, for the Alliance of British Watch and Clockmakers. This young organisation, launched three years ago, has so far brought together some 73 brands with the aim of promoting the nation’s watch and clockmaking around the world. It champions British provenance and job–creation for the sector in the UK. Funds from sales of the watch will go to this end.

“And just look at that watch,” enthuses Scargill-Bowman. “It’s just weird, in a good way. There’s all that negative space, the cyclops hour window, and yet it is the watch that everybody picks up. Its design is playful but stops short of being outrageous. And I think that’s a quality specific to British design. There’s an understatement to it, with very classic proportions, but also with an irreverence.”

Scargill-Bowman concedes that to ascribe a specific design ethos to a nation is to stereotype – “but I’m ready to own that,” he laughs. It puts the aesthetic of British-designed watches – sometimes also part-made and, much less often, more or less entirely made in the UK – into the realm of the Mini Cooper or the Jaguar E-Type, the Spitfire or Concorde, the Burberry trench- coat, Dr. Marten’s boot or the Anglepoise lamp. It is a disparate bunch of icons but maybe there is something in the idea that a certain sensibility lies behind them all, as might be behind the more sensuous, more pop classics of, say, Italian design.

Idiosyncratic Visions

“It is hard to define but I think there’s a real creative drive [to British watchmaking now], an approach that says, for example, ‘here’s a new material, what can we do with it?’ rather than ‘what does the marketing department say we should be making now?’,” suggests the watchmaker Fiona Kruger, who’s British but based in France, and focuses her practice as an artist into watchmaking. “I think watchmaking often falls back on established ideas of how watches should be designed. I think British watchmaking leans towards designing watches that don’t already exist.”

“The British aesthetic is definitely a big part of what we do,” argues Roger Smith, often considered the world’s greatest living watchmaker – every component of his watches, of which only 18 are made a year, is hand-made in-house. “There’s a 3D depth to the designs, and a relative simplicity to the decoration of the movements, that echoes the historical past of watchmaking in the UK – particularly the English pocket watches of the 1820s and 1830s – that I couldn’t see elsewhere in watches and which has become a signature.”

“I have a strong cohort of clients who believe that ‘British is best’ because of the country’s reputation as the home of many luxury goods,” Smith adds. “I think as a nation we’re great creators and like to do things differently. And that’s to the advantage in watch design now. British watchmaking in the broadest sense is very much on the up. The challenge of course is to take it to the next level.”

What Collectors Are After

Certainly, the last decade has seen a transformation in the development of a watch industry in the UK. It is in revival mode, with a boom in new brands – some of which have already come and gone, while others have found a marketable distinction. Some are offering a kind of radical classical style – from Dent, with its nods to London’s landmark Big Ben, for which it also created the dial; others something bolder and fresher – from the retro sportiness of Farer to the outlandish colour palette of Studio Underdog.

Being British-made was, says Dave Brailsford, of clockmakers-turned- watchmakers Garrick, the brand’s raison d’être from day one. And that, he says, has actually proven a profitable decision, such that three-quarters of its watches are sold abroad. “Britishness just has a distinct appeal to some markets, and in Asia in particular,” he argues. “I think the instability of the pandemic period – when getting hold of a lot of Swiss watches was very hard – has encouraged collectors to be more open- minded, to look to other markets the likes of the British one. And now I’m seeing young watchmakers here who, three to five years down the line, are aiming to hand-make watches because that’s what collectors are after now.”

The likes of Garrick, with its in-house calibre and artful finishing, are perhaps a reminder that, if you go back far enough, Britain was once a world leader in horology. Although the historical record is not always precise, 17th-century English scientist Robert Hooke lays claim to having invented the balance spring; Daniel Quare created the first repeating watch movement in 1680; in 1730 John Harrison invented the marine chronometer and in 1755 Thomas Mudge came up with the lever escapement – an integral part of mechanical watchmaking still.

The invention of the chronometer in the 18th century is attributed to Thomas Young and the self-winding mechanism to John Harwood in 1923, even if it was first taken to market by Fortis and Blancpain. In 1974, George Daniels – to whom Roger Smith was apprentice – created the co- axial escapement, latterly popularised by Omega. Smith has made his own advances on that (links between the Swiss and the British are strewn across this article, including the key participation of Andreas Strehler and his firm Uhr Teil AG in the development of that in-house Garrick calibre; Farer touts the Swiss Made label on the dial; it is not our intention to suggest that watchmakers outside Switzerland are keenly building up the entire value chain to produce watches in their own markets – only China, Hong Kong and Japan have this sort of infrastructure, but more countries are getting in on the act).

From Bust to Boom

“There’s definitely a watch enthusiast that appreciates that Britain was once world leading in watchmaking, that many of its innovators, in mechanisms as in the designs too, were British. I mean, even Rolex started out here,” notes Paul Pinchbeck, director of British makers Harold Pinchbeck, which can trace its roots back to another innovator, Christopher Pinchbeck. Curiously, this early 18th century clockmaker was the inventor of an eponymous alloy, a cheap substitute for gold. “A lot of manufacturing here became diluted through the latter half of the 20th century, not just watchmaking, and I do think something [ineffable] is lost by using components from abroad, even if there’s nothing wrong with the results as such”.

Indeed, by the late 1800s British makers were exporting 200,000 watches a year and, arguably, that number would have continued to grow to rival the Swiss industry were it not for World Wars I and II: while Switzerland’s neutrality meant it was able to continue developing and manufacturing wristwatches (and selling them to both sides), in both instances British industry had to pivot to making armaments and military equipment, including watches but ignoring the civilian market. While some makers persisted until the 1970s – most notably Smiths, whose vintage military pieces are especially collectible – most fell by the wayside.

Some, however, have parlayed that wartime connection into success today: five years ago Vertex, a British manufacturer and one of the so-called ‘Dirty Dozen’ military watches, was relaunched by Don Cochrane, the grandson of one of the brand’s original leading figures. It opens a London store this spring.

“It is curious how there’s been this acceleration in British watches over the last 10 years,” says Cochrane, who notes that at the last Worn & Wound New York exhibition he attended, a third of the brands showing were British. “Of course, the UK is not alone in seeing a proliferation of micro–brands. It is happening in France too, for example. But I think what connects a lot of the British ones is that they’re driven by the story behind them. There’s a narrative that appeals.”

Origin Stories

Indeed, there is some debate as to whether the provenance of the physical parts really matters. Giles Schofield, founder of British watch brand Schofield – whose cases are made and finished in the UK, with hands, dials and crowns imported – argues that there was a time when “waving the Union Jack [the national flag] around was a badge of honour” and helped generate sales. During the 1990s, for example, there was a government-led push on British goods and culture dubbed ‘Cool Britannia’. “But that same Britishness has, I think, yet to be defined in the watch space, at least not in the way that Britishness is still important if you’re considering, say, men’s hand–made shoes, or cutlery.”

This is why, he says, he treads a middle line: his Black Lamp model, for example, is 95 percent made in the UK – a fact once trumpeted on the brand’s website – “and I’d like to make more in the UK for practical reasons, because it is closer to the design process and easier to articulate what can be complex ideas”. But although he put some origin stamps on his dials in the early days of the brand – “I was too nervous not to then,” he says – now he does not bother. On occasion he has jokily stamped ‘Made in Nice Places’ or ‘Made in Sussex’ (a region of southern England).

But perhaps there is a renewed enthusiasm for bringing watchmaking home. Harold Pinchbeck, for example, currently uses a Swiss movement for its watches but plans to use an English one, “even though they’re rare, made in small numbers and so tend to be expensive,” as Paul Pinchbeck notes. Struthers – the company founded by husband-and-wife team Craig and Rebecca Struthers, both antique watch restorers – is now developing its own in-house movement, Project 248, with an improved version of the long side- lined English lever escapement, English rocking bar keyless work, behind a top plate inspired by an 1880 English pocket watch “in the traditional English style”. Englishness, clearly, is front and centre.

Investing In The Future

“It is true that a lot of people don’t care where a watch is made. But I think our customers do,” argues the aptly–named Giles English, co–founder of Bremont, which, with the exception of some components, the hands particularly, makes its watches in- house. “Being British, I think it then also makes more sense for us to work with other British companies – the likes of Martin-Baker or Williams – as we have done. There is a British watch industry historically and a new, fledgling one developing now, albeit slowly – to manufacture in the UK, rather than use components from Switzerland or the Far East, takes time and millions in investment, so it is not surprising that the incentive to make in the UK isn’t there for many of the new brands.”

Millions is exactly what Bremont, which last year marked its 20th birthday, has recently acquired. Some 18 months on from opening a 35,000 sqf manufacturing centre in the UK, it has this year taken on a USD 59 million investment to lay further foundations for watchmaking there.

Money is not the only challenge. There is also the comparatively tight legal restrictions around claims to be ‘made in the UK’ (think of the complexities around the Swiss Made term). And marshalling component manufacturers must sometimes feel like more effort than it is worth. It is why Giles Schofield finds himself working with 32 different suppliers, which is complicated but, he says, at least avoids the homogeneity seen in other parts of the watch industry.

“The issue with watchmaking is that it seems the tolerances required are alien to everyone outside of watchmaking, and that means sometimes [if you don’t want to have your watches made abroad] you have to learn to do these things yourself,” explains Lewis Heath, founder of AnOrdain watches, which stands out for its in-house enamelled dials and for which there’s currently a healthy five-year order book. “I think the ‘British card’ is the last one to play. You have to have something more substantial that sets you apart. But as the critical mass of British brands grows there will be a sharing of resources that will help the sector create more substance.”

Meeting In The Middle

And none of this is to say that manufacturing in the UK is not possible without either the exceptional situation of a Roger Smith or the scale achieved by the likes of a Bremont. Take the Loomes Original (seen here), or the Robin, for example, both models from British watchmakers and restorers Loomes. Both are made entirely in the UK, largely from components supplied by companies new to watches. Achieving this was a seven-year-long project but, stresses Loomes’ Robert Loomes, who is also chairman of the British Horological Institute, it can be done. Indeed, Bedford Dials – normally a maker of pressure, temperature and automotive dials, and one of the companies he has worked with – has since started making dials for several Swiss watch companies.

“The fact is that there are specialist firms here who can make, say, jewels, or a hairspring, if you ask them to. It is just the scale of the venture that puts other watchmakers off I think, and the expense,” says Loomes, who reckons using British suppliers resulted in his watches being perhaps eight times more expensive than they otherwise could have been, an expense that would of course be greatly reduced if manufacturing in larger volumes.

“It took forever to find a company that could make screws and in the end we used a specialist medical equipment supplier, which made each screw insanely expensive, about £8, when we could have maybe bought a bag of thousands from China for that,” Loomes chuckles. “And, yes, there were companies that wouldn’t just make 50 components for me. But then there were others who didn’t take on the work for the money but because they found it interesting. It was a big and complex project. But I think we proved our point.”

This story was first seen on WOW’s Spring 2023 Issue.

For more on the latest in luxury watch news and releases, click here.

When Bill Clinton’s strategist James Caville was asked what mattered most to the forthcoming election campaign, he coined a phrase that would enter the political lexicon: “It’s the economy, stupid”. So anyone who might ask why people buy counterfeit watches might similarly reply: “It’s the price, stupid”.

The fact that demand is high – some 40 million fakes are circulated every year, according to the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, and that is around 25 percent more than the Swiss industry produces – might well point to this fact. Indeed, watches are among the most counterfeited products, representing around 30 percent of all counterfeit goods. Why else would anyone buy a fake, if it was not for the fact that the ‘real thing’ was – relatively speaking, and for all sorts of reasons – so expensive?

If only the world of counterfeit watches was so simple. Xuemei Ban, professor of marketing at Northumbria University, UK, who has made a study of the psychology of buying counterfeits, points to some rather unexpected findings of her research. “Of course people would be much less willing to buy a counterfeit watch for the design alone, if it wasn’t a matter of [buying into a status] brand,” she says. But, she adds, the big picture is far more complicated than consideration of fakes has, to date, really given credit for.

Looking the Part

Take fun, for example, Yes, fun. Counterfeit watches have entertainment value akin to fast ‘disposable’ fashion, also known for ‘ripping off’ more expensive designer styles. “In terms of its function a counterfeit may not be as good as the original, yet it still serves a purpose [in that it still tells the time] and lasts long enough to make economic sense,” she says. “It’s like buying a fake Manchester United shirt. For the few times you’re going to wear it, the fake works”.

What is yet more counter-intuitive, her studies suggest, is that counterfeit watches are bought by even those consumers who can afford to buy the real thing. It is, for them, a different way to interact with the brand: they might wear their genuine watch in some circumstances and the fake in others. And, since they invariably look the part, nobody questions whether what they’re wearing is real or fake anyway.

“Wearing a counterfeit gives them a certain satisfaction,” Ban explains. “It’s not just that there’s little risk of [a fall in social standing] for them to wear a counterfeit. It’s that in doing so it cuts against social norms, and there’s enjoyment in that for them. There’s a sense of naughtiness to it all. It appeals to their dark side”. It is, she says, a hard thing for the high-end watch manufacturers to get their heads around: “that there’s a willingness to buy counterfeit watches even among their target audience. They need to admit that to themselves,” she insists. “Denying [the nature of] demand isn’t going to help them tackle the problem. Telling people ‘stop buying counterfeits’ won’t work”.

Willing Accomplices

This is just one of the stranger twists in human psychology behind the ceaseless growth in the market for counterfeit watches. According to Professor Andre Le Roux, of the University of Poitiers’s Institute of Business Administration, who has co-authored several papers on consumer behaviour relating to counterfeits, appealing to the possible financial impact on legitimate watch manufacturers’ bottom lines just is not convincing, not least because - while it certainly happens – it is not clear how many people buy a fake believing it to be the real thing.

Certainly a finer appreciation for the damage to brand reputation – and for many of the big players of the watch industry, the cost of building and maintaining a brand outweighs that of actually making products – is typically one only CEOs and marketing directors properly appreciate.

"Many consumers are ready to buy some form of counterfeit, depending on the product [and its potential harms to themselves] - a t-shirt like a Lacoste polo, say, but not a chemical [or cosmetics or sunglasses],” explains Le Roux. "And most people who buy counterfeits are accomplices of the counterfeiters – they’re ready to buy a counterfeit and, based on the suspiciously ‘good deal’ they’re offered, it’s pretty obvious to them what they’re buying".

Not a Victimless Crime

The Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry speaks of counterfeiting’s negative impact on employment and revenue – to the tune of EUR 1.9bn annually – across the legitimate industry, through Le Roux is sceptical of the idea that, if only it was not for the counterfeit option, consumers would necessarily buy the genuine article. “Yes, people may, in the abstract, feel bad for the company (making the genuine product). They may know it’s bad for the economy or might cost jobs. But, frankly, they don’t care,” he says.

Besides, in an age that has more than a tinge of anti-capitalist fervour about it, protecting profits or intellectual property or even reputation is hardly a winning argument, even if all three brand properties are in fact damaged by counterfeiting. Rather, his research shows that, for a minority of consumers, there is even a militant incentive to buying a counterfeit: “It’s a way to express an opposition to the brand [as symbolic of corporate power], a form of retaliation against a brand perceived as ripping the consumer off,” he says. “These consumers want you to know they’re wearing a counterfeit watch. That’s the point. Really, if they’re going to tackle counterfeiting, companies need a much deeper appreciation of the way consumers think”.

Might then, an appeal to a broader morality work in dissuading the purchase of counterfeit watches? Over recent years, the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry has placed more emphasis on the criminal aspect of counterfeiting – less the fakery itself, so much as the trade being a front for the kind of crimes that, one might imagine, are likely to be taken more seriously by the public. A recent Europol report, for example, concluded that 80 percent of criminal networks the counterfeiting of various products as a means for laundering money; that – and this might read more as a scare tactic – the online purchase of counterfeits is often a front for the stealing of credit card details.

Increased Sophistication

Yet Le Roux’s studies suggest that most consumers of counterfeiters are not conscious of the potential legal penalties facing themselves – in most countries buying a counterfeit watch is, technically, illegal – let alone the wider ramifications for society. And Ban agrees: “We [and others] have done a number of projects about whether ethics affects purchase decisions regarding counterfeits and pretty much all the literature aligns: moral considerations don’t have a significant role”.

Maybe these consumers are just insufficiently informed. “Not enough people are aware of [these negative aspects of watch counterfeiting],” concedes Carole Aubert, head of the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry’s legal division, “and we need to do a lot more work on [correcting] that. On the one hand there is growing awareness among authorities and consumers that it’s not a victimless crime. On the other hand [is the challenge that] counterfeiting is that much more sophisticated now, both in terms of product and distribution”.

Certainly, the watch counterfeiting market has gone through a sea-change in recent years. As Aubert puts it, the Internet – and latterly social media – has meant that there are “no barriers [to purchase]. It’s not a question of going to marketplaces in tourist destinations anymore.” As Xuemei Ban adds, sales of counterfeit watches have long skewed towards less well-regulated markets where counterfeits have been more readily available; now it is tipping towards those nations – wealthier nations, it is worth noting – where, historically, picking up a counterfeit has not been so easy. Ironically, it is in those countries where counterfeits look to be proving more desirable too.

Rise of the Super-Fake

But then there is also the rise of the so-called "super-fake". Counterfeit watches are increasingly made using the latest CNC and 3D printing technology on advanced factory lines – mostly in East Asia – and sometimes by those involved in the manufacture of parts for the legitimate watch industry.

Certainly, in "de-localising" production so extensively, Le Roux argues, some watch manufacturers might be held liable for the development of counterfeiting – "because in many cases now the sub-contractor is the counterfeiter. There’s ‘ghost production’ going on alongside the legitimate production”. Even if said sub-contractors may not make the whole watch, co-ordinate orders for components from enough of them and you have the makings of a decent watch and, perhaps just as importantly, a convincing counterfeit. Pre-owned watch dealer Watchfinder & Co. noted in a report last year that five years ago, 80 percent of counterfeit watches sent into its stores were easily identified as fake, with 20 percent needing closer inspection. Now those figures have been reversed.

Fabrice Gueroux, author of ‘Real & Fake Watches’ and an independent authenticator for many heavyweight collectors, is not surprised. In part, this is, he laments, down to a decline in the quality of some Swiss-made watches – such that, he says, the standard of their counterfeits is sometimes superior. But it is also because, as with any other industry, increased competition among makers of counterfeits – once, he says, dominated by just five mega-facilities in China – has pushed quality up.

Why Pay More?

“You can sometimes close your eyes and hold a counterfeit in your hands and there’s something that doesn’t feel right about it, but [the challenge is that] you need deep knowledge of the genuine watch for that and, of course, that’s what most people don’t have,” he explains. “With enough time even the best fake shows itself, and the very best ones have put in the extra time on the paintwork, the fonts, the bracelet. But even I’m surprised by just how good a counterfeit can now be”.

The effect of this is two-fold. Gueroux explains that, as more of these super-fakes enter the open market and then get passed around the booming secondary market, it only takes one unscrupulous seller pricing their fake cleverly in order to deceive – as a great deal but not such a bargain as to suggest anything dubious – for subsequent owners to assume the piece is genuine from then on. Consequently, it is likely the future will see more people buying a fake without knowing it is a fake. Even the seller will not know.

And Le Roux adds that the improving quality of counterfeits only underscores this whole issue as being one of consumer psychology: if quality was a key reason for buying the real thing, as the gap between the fake and the genuine article narrows – not at the microscopic level perhaps, nor that of the most advanced research and development, but for all that the average consumer, or their peers, can tell – the incentive to pay more also diminishes, at least for all but the true horolophiles.

Arms Race

Perhaps the only means for watch brands to beat counterfeiters – “to create a firewall against it,” Le Roux suggests – is for manufacturers to make their products even more advanced in terms of craft and technology, “but of course always being able to offer some unique product advantage is not at all easy.” And then there is the ongoing parallel arms race of anti-counterfeiting measures the likes of engravings, serial numbers and holograms, all, eventually, convincingly copied too. “You see [the manufacturers] spending a lot of money on anti-counterfeiting tech but it’s all BS,” reckons an uncompromising Gueroux. “The fact is they can’t keep up [with counterfeiters’ capabilities]”.

Besides, those true horolophiles are a minority among even those consumers interested in a ‘good’ watch. “If buying a counterfeit can be interpreted as a kind of wisdom – you are buying the image of a brand without the cost of their product – then, obviously, [given counterfeit’s advance in quality too] why would consumers then pay many times more for the ‘real thing’?” Le Roux asks, rhetorically.

That question, he stresses, is going to be especially resonant in those developing markets that want the consumer trappings of developed markets now – “to show that they’re in the trend of development” – without the incomes to buy them. Around 30 to 40 percent of such consumers search for counterfeits, according to one study. And often that is not even about trying to buy into a status brand on the cheap: in many markets, counterfeits serve a basic need at a price that is cheaper than even mass-market, entry-level watch brands sell at. “The counterfeit watch market isn’t just about wanting to wear a Rolex,” Ban stresses.

Final Battleground

But, perhaps in time, the brand on a watch dial will come to have less resonance. Take the growing prevalence of the ‘homage’ or replica watch – one which capitalises on the distinctive look of a certain model, but often remains brand-free, and is typically openly marketed as a version ‘inspired by’ the well- known original; one which also demonstrates just how quickly the counterfeit industry is now able to respond to the new fashionability of a watch model, even one from a micro-brand not well known among watch fans.

This echoes a similar shift in the furniture market. Excellent replicas of classic furniture designs are undisguisedly sold as “Eames-style” or “Bertoia-style”, despite – arguably – a cost to the holder of the official license to manufacture the designs. They are bought too with zero moral qualms.

Aubert argues that, legally, the situation is different: it varies from country to country, but furniture is typically protected by copyright, and copyright eventually expires. A watch design, in contrast, is not considered an ‘artistic work’ – though maybe it

should be – and so is not copyrightable. But the comparison is perhaps indicative of where the watch world may be heading in decades to come, especially as sales of counterfeits show no sign of decline: towards acceptance, however reluctant, of a parallel market that provides a cheaper alternative for those who want it. Those who want the genuine article – maybe simply because it is the genuine article – will buy it and take satisfaction accordingly.

This also speaks to what may be the last battleground on which the real and counterfeit can face off. Further academic studies suggest even if fake and genuine items are virtually indistinguishable, for some consumers the counterfeit choice nonetheless remains a primer for self-doubt, and increasingly so in a culture that is said to value authenticity. It is a concern particularly prevalent among younger consumers and, “since they’re key to the future of our clients”, says Aubert, is something the Federation is leaning into. Not for nothing did the Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie base its anti-counterfeiting campaign of a few years ago around the statement “Fake Watches are for Fake People”.

Tarnishing Everyone

What Le Roux calls “social image” – how buying a counterfeit changes the assessment of a consumer in the eyes of their peers – remains a factor. More intriguing perhaps is what it says to the consumer about themselves. According to research by Moty Amar, professor of marketing at Ono Academic School in Israel, the buying of counterfeits can still have an element of what is called “moral disgust” to it. This negatively affects both the use of the counterfeit watch – owners struggle to escape feeling somewhat ambivalent about it – but, more problematically for watch manufactures, impressions of the genuine article too: it makes the real thing feel like a counterfeit itself.

Therein, arguably, lies the real problem with counterfeit watches. It is less to do with deceived consumers, lost sales, or the undoubted annoyance of the fakers free-riding the value created in brands over many years – and let us not overlook the fact that watch manufacturers are not above producing their own close versions of other companies’ more iconic designs either. Rather, it is more to do with the way counterfeits tarnish the whole enterprise of watchmaking, at least for those brands powerful enough to warrant copying in the first place.

And that, Gueroux points out, brings us back to square one, which is the conundrum for all high-end brands, almost by definition: that they have created a desirability that not everyone can access legitimately. And, in the case of watches it seems, that some do not even want to access legitimately. It’s a sorry conclusion, he admits, but people are people. And, as such, counterfeiting “is a battle the manufacturers can’t win”.

This article first appeared on WOW’s Summer 2024 issue.

For more on the latest in watch reads, click here.

When, in 1963, Hans Wilsdorf was finally succeeded by Andrew Heiniger, the new boss of Rolex knew he had to shake things up. He needed a watch that made a statement for being unlike anything Rolex had made before. He turned to Gerald Genta – the watch design legend-to- be – and, 60 years ago this year, the aptly-named King Midas would be launched.

The King Midas was a plain yet refined two-hander, though that description does not do the watch any favours. It features an asymmetrical pentagonal engraved case, with the winding crown shaped like a stylised sun, and placed on a minimalistic link bracelet. It was also gold, and in a big way: the King Midas was Rolex’s most expensive watch up until that time. It was also the heaviest gold watch then commercially available, and the first to use synthetic sapphire crystal glass.

The watch would find an unlikely fan in the perma-macho John Wayne and was, of course, the watch worn by Christopher Lee as Francesco Scaramanga, the villain in the James Bond film ‘The Man With the Golden Gun’, which marks its 50th anniversary this year. But the watch’s most apposite acolyte? The king of living large, aka The King, aka Elvis Presley; he would end up damaging his first of many by wearing it in the bath, such was his attachment to the watch.

Perhaps this was the tipping point, the moment when gold moved from being a noble material for classic dress watches to making any watch it came in a totem of flashiness; at best, a kind of wearable insurance. It is a gold Art Deco Patek Philippe, after all, that Michael Douglas – free of any other form of money – hawks for cash in ‘The Game’ (1997) in order to get back to the US from Mexico. “A man with a watch like that doesn’t have a visa problem,” he is told.

“The gold watch defined the success of Rolex for many years. It was a commodity you could take anywhere with you and exchange for cash,” notes Edouard Meylan, the CEO of H. Moser and Cie, who says the watch he wore most last year was the brand’s black-dialled Streamliner in gold – not that he is planning to go on the run soon. “I would have felt uncomfortable wearing a gold watch before, so I’m not sure if I’ve changed or gold has. But there’s an intuitive feeling that gold is right again now. And there’s still the idea that if I have to flee in a hurry, I’ll take my gold watch with me."

Perhaps, as notes Nicholas Bowman-Scargill (founder of Farer watches), yellow gold is the perfect material for our uncertain times – pandemics, wars, cost of living crises – when we retrench in the security of tradition. “I’m not sure that yellow gold is fashionable again so much as dependable,” he suggests.

But the idea of the big gold watch as, first and foremost, a symbol of wealth and an expression of conspicuous consumption – one Genta was perhaps playing with – has cut deep. It is a trope cinema has acknowledged repeatedly. It was Douglas, again, who wore a gold Cartier Santos as Gordon Gekko in ‘Wall Street’ (1987). The gold watch is even used a totem of the growing wealth of stockbroker Jordan Belfort, as played by Leonardo DiCaprio, as he progresses through the story of ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ (2013): from steel Seiko Solar to gold-plated TAG Heuer Series 1000 to solid gold TAG Heuer Series 2000. “You see this watch? You see this watch I’m wearing?” asks the brash salesman, played by Alec Baldwin, of his underlings in ‘Glenglarry Glen Ross’ (1992). “This watch costs more than your car”. It is a Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date, in gold of course.

The pure gold watch is the wrist candy of rappers and sheikhs – and, indeed, the wealth of emerging markets ensured there was a phase when many brands were only too willing to meet the demand for big and blingy gold watches in order to help pay the company loans. Undoubtedly, the gold watch is iconic, and the watch world of late has certainly been dipping its toe in golden waters again. Not just with less ostentatious red, white and rose gold either – a trend for some time now – but with the shinier stuff too: good old yellow gold.

There is Vacheron Constantin – with its Overseas tourbillon; Waldor & Co – with its Avant 39 EZE; Chopard – with its Mille Miglia; Longines – with its Master GMT: on and on the wristwatch landscape is aglow. Even brands associated with functional minimalism – Nomos Glashutte, for example, with its Lux Hermelin – or micro-brands associated with affordability - Baltic, for instance, with its HMS 002 – are getting into gold. In the latter example, it is the colour and not the material.

George Bamford, of Bamford Watches, highlights Breitling’s collaboration with Victoria Beckham on the Chronomat 36 – with the most striking option in yellow gold – and Piaget’s revived Polo 79 model. “That’s already being touted as ‘the watch of 2024’ and, Christ, that’s a real chunk of gold,” he exclaims. “You look at that and it's very hard to explain gold’s allure other than to point out that it’s a remarkably expressive material, in its play with light, in its various shades, its weight and softness [literally and figuratively] such that I think even scratches enhance its appeal, in its connection to the Earth. I think rose gold has been a kind of gateway drug to getting us back into yellow gold, into making it acceptable again”.

Certainly, the draw of gold has been deeply human for millennia – the Egyptians and Aztecs both delighted in the metal even though it was relatively abundant compared with more prosaic but useful base metals the likes of iron which were more highly prized (archaeological evidence suggests that human societies were using gold before they figured out how to work iron – Ed). Gold resonates from the Christian nativity story to the flakes sprinkled on otherwise pedestrian dishes and cocktails to warrant stupid prices. It is why gold watches have traditionally been given for landmark birthdays, or on retirement – a tradition said to have been started by Pepsi Co. in the 1940s – or to mark a special achievement.

Albert Einstein, for example, was given a yellow gold Longines by the Zionist convention in Los Angeles in 1931. Becoming the US President has been marked with the precious metal since 1951, when Rolex gave Dwight Eisenhower, the five-star general, and soon-to-be President, a gold Date-Just. Gold signifies the top spot: when Florida State Senator Grant Stockdale commissioned a gold Omega Ultra Thin as a gift for John F. Kennedy – inscribed with ‘President of the United States’ – Kennedy had not yet won the election.

"The symbolism of gold is strong and deeply rooted in the history of watchmaking and jewellery, and I believe that no material can replace it,” reckons Bruno Belamich, co-founder and design boss of Bell & Ross, which last year made the metalwork on even its most utilitarian of designs, with the BR 05 Green Gold. "Gold is a noble material that combines several characteristics: the preciousness of its material, the light and symbolism of power through its colour, and finally, yes, gold does display a certain status”.

But does that mean gold is still inescapably burdened with those more negative associations too? As Bart Gronefeld has it, you can have a Gronefeld watch in any gold as long as it is not yellow. “We don’t do yellow gold because for me it’s just to show-off,” he says. “It’s making a statement about being gold. You need a certain confidence to wear gold, I think, but it’s interesting to see even young people opt for gold-coloured Casios now.”

Bowman-Scargill argues the cycle may now be shifting in yellow gold’s favour. “There’s still a feeling of glamour, decadence and luxury in rose, red and pink golds without the [questionable] overtones of yellow gold,” he says. ”Because the 1980s were all about yellow gold [and record prices for yellow gold too], it came to represent success. It went away in the 1990s. But now I think yellow gold is working again as a response to the market saturation of rose gold and steel. Of course, some yellow-gold watches are unashamedly brash. But yellow gold doesn’t have to signal success. Worn in the right way it can signal sophistication, classicism, warmth.”

Certainly, the rise of interest in vintage watches has helped to drive interest in yellow gold. So have watchmakers’ growing readiness to apply various technological advances to it. Pure gold, at 24k, is completely corrosion-proof, which is why it used to be used for internal watch parts too. But it is also a soft metal, easily machined, but prone to dents and wear. That is why mixing gold with other metals to produce alloys was first done to add hardness – these days 18k gold, 75 percent pure, is about as premium as it gets.

In recent years, aiming to rise above ‘standard’ gold, brands have developed their own alloys as much for effect as for function. Hublot, for instance, has its red King Gold – with added copper and platinum to stabilise the colour but also to neutralise oxidation – and its Magic Gold, a blend of gold and ceramic – and hence what the company claims as being the first scratch-proof gold.

Rolex, famously, even has its own gold foundry and so developed its proprietary Everose, with a secret formula aiming to combat the fact that rose gold fades over time, especially when exposed to chlorinated or salt water. Swatch Group also has a foundry, which has led to the creation of Omega’s reddish Sedna gold, an alloy with copper and palladium, and its Moonshine gold, a subtle yellow gold akin to the colour of the moon at night. A Lange & Söhne has its honey gold, twice as hard as yellow gold; Chanel its ‘beige’ gold, in homage to one of Coco Chanel’s favourite shades.

Even the colour gold has pulling power: Rado, known for its ceramic pieces, has developed a PVD coating in yellow and rose gold, and a golden Ceramos, its proprietary composite material developed precisely to retain the hardy properties of ceramics without losing the lustre of metal alloys. Golden Ceramos Dia-Star and Captain Cook models are among its latest.

“It’s a technological gold, with the colour of gold representing value,” says Rado’s CEO Adrian Bossard, making a philosophical point. “There have certainly been periods of my career when only steel mattered. But it’s interesting both how gold has come back heavily and found appeal with younger customers too.” As he points out, yellow gold, to them, is a novelty.

These ‘technological golds’ have been imbued with functionality. But maybe gold does have a kind of functionality of its own. “Gold is akin to art in that it serves a deep psychological purpose without being at all functional,” suggests Bowman-Scargill. “If gold has a function, it is in the way it makes you feel”.

Can a watch brand act on just a feeling? For some brands, gold is a step too far not for reasons of its image, so much as for its cost. Gold signifies wealth, after all, precisely because it is expensive. That, as Edouard Meylan stresses, has meant that for most manufacturers committing to making a model in gold, it requires more than taking the cultural temperature of the metal.

“Making a model in gold isn’t so much a technical issue so much as one of finance – you need to have the money upfront, the millions you need for the funds of gold required, and that’s a barrier to entry [to making a watch in gold] for many brands,” he explains – indeed, special processes are required to work with gold precisely to absolutely minimise wastage. “You’re taking a bet not just on the success of the model you’re making in gold, but on the future value of the gold itself too”.

Back when Pepsi Co. started making its golden gesture to its retirees, the price of gold was around USD 34 an ounce. Today it hovers around a whopping USD 2,000. You might imagine that would put most people off buying a gold watch. But, for the moment at least, it is all relative. With the price premium on stainless steel models rocketing, buying one in gold starts to make more sense: back in 1974, an 18k solid gold Rolex Submariner retailed at eight times the price of its steel equivalent; now it is four times. All the same, watchmakers have to consider very carefully whether to commit to making a model in gold at all.

And maybe, in years to come, they just will not bother. Perhaps by then the gold watch will have lost its power to signal status with quite the potency that it once had. Meylan argues, for sheer showoff capacity, yellow gold - “once considered the flashy gold, not the gold of good taste,” he reckons – has now been trumped not by palladium or iridium or rhodium – all precious metals more valuable than gold – but by high engineering.

“Carbon fibre has become the new gold,” he laughs. “If you want a really showy watch now you don’t wear gold. You wear something by, say, Richard Mille”. By that logic, it cannot be long before it is advanced materials – biopolymers, graphene, alloys the likes of CrCoNi (after chromium, cobalt and nickel) which last year set the highest toughness ever recorded of any material – that becomes valued over something that is just dug out of the ground. But then, there is still that bit about feelings, which tend to be a bit soft, just like gold, and humans have had a soft spot for the stuff since forever.

This article first appeared on WOW’s Spring 2024 issue.

For more on the latest in watch reads, click here.