411.NX.1117.LR.0999
When I first really got into watches, one of the things which annoyed me the most was how much vitriol TAG Heuer attracted. Thankfully it seems to have died down a bit now, but a few years ago it was de rigueur to slag TAG Heuer at every opportunity and even now YouTubers looking for a few extra clicks often resort to reasoned, balanced videos with titles like 'TAG Heuer; just how CRAP are they?' and 'Let's talk about how much TAG Heuer SUCK ASS!!!'.
I'm paraphrasing of course and I talked about this at length in a previous post so I'll try not to bore you by repeating myself, but recently it seems like while the heat has gone off TAG Heuer a little bit, it's perhaps only because the watch community has found itself a new whipping boy and a target with a softer underbelly at that.
Because the problem with slagging off TAG Heuer has always been that even the most hardened watch Nazi has a soft spot for the Monaco and the 39mm Carrera, models which TAG Heuer are still producing today to much approval and applause. So inevitably the 'hatefest' always had to come served with a slight caveat; 'We hate TAG Heuer, but maybe not these models and obviously not the Heuer models from the 60s and 70s because... Steve McQueen, etc, etc'.
Hublot presents no such problems. Born in 1980 (at the heart of the quartz crisis no less) Hublot turned over $2m in its first year, but it wasn't until the 'Midas-like' Jean Claude Biver joined the company and launched the 'Big Bang' in 2005 that it really started to sky rocket to success. Within two years Hublot's turnover had quadrupled and in 2008 it was acquired by the LVMH group for an undisclosed sum.
I guess it's easy to see why some people really dislike Hublot; for sure the watches aren't to everyone's taste and that's obviously an issue, though to be honest they do have some nice pieces and even some surprisingly tasteful ones in reasonable sizes if you care to look hard enough. They are also quite expensive considering the movements they use (something not unique to Hublot it must be said) and of course they simply don't have the required 'heritage' to operate in the higher echelons of the Swiss watch industry.
I mean how very dare they? Coming along in the 1980s when the watch industry is on it's knees, starting up a new company and thinking it can compete with powerhouses like Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin, Patek Philippe and Rolex. It's an outrage! And doing it with a 'modernist' design to boot. Of course these people totally underestimated the esteemed Jean Claude Biver and his mastery of marketing...
Today Hublot is everywhere; until recently they sponsored the Ferrari F1 team, they have sponsored football leagues, teams and championships, they even had their logo emblazoned across Floyd Mayweather's boxing shorts (at who knows what exorbitant cost*), in the process they have done what countless other 'watch brands' have failed to do - they have entered the public consciousness. Perhaps not the 'general' public quite so much, but certainly the part of the public that has £10,000+ to spend on watches, ie - their customers.
(*Interestingly, it seems Mr Mayweather actually bought his $1.1M Hublot on a shopping trip to Dubai rather than being gifted it for his ambassadorial services - so perhaps this sponsorship isn't quite as 'transactional' as it first seems.)
So it's all hype? Well, to a degree, yes, but isn't everything? And hype alone wouldn't be enough if people didn't like the products, and they clearly do. Are they the best watches in the world - no, but they've certainly shown they can make haute horlogerie pieces and they have developed bespoke materials like their own scratchproof gold (Magic Gold). They have also carved out their own niche in the market, offering 'modern' designs in a marketplace that is absolutely saturated with 'heritage' this and 'retro' that... in fact, for the buyer who wants to graduate from the TAG Heuer price point but maintain the 'modern aesthetic' Hublot really is the obvious next step.
But who else is all hype? Rolex. Are Rolex the best watches in the world - no, and when was the last time you saw Rolex produce anything remotely 'haute'? Their most complicated watch is the Skydweller and that's not exactly giving Patek sleepless nights. There's nothing wrong with Rolex, but they are also well overpriced, the only reason no one calls them out is that there is such a 'cult' around Rolex that if you buy the right Rolex your watch will appreciate rather than depreciate, so it simply doesn't matter.
Obviously, while this is great for Rolex's standing in the watch world, it doesn't help their bottom line since the grey market is creaming off all the extra cash that's flying around, hence Rolex keep on putting up their prices and so a stainless steel watch with a solid but unspectacular movement is now nigh on £10,000. You could also say the same about Audemars Piguet and the standard Royal Oak. How do we 'justify' the price of those?
We can't, and nor should we because the watches are a sum of more than their components. Would the Monaco be half the watch it is without the cool factor of 'Steve McQueen'? Let's not forget the Monaco (and the Carrera for that matter) was discontinued for quite a while before it was brought back, initially as a 'heritage novelty' and later a mass market model as TAG Heuer realised that Monaco, Carrera and other distinctive names had more pull than '1500', '2000' and '6000'.
Let's be honest, without marketing or 'hype' for want of a better word, the Swiss watch industry couldn't charge half of what it does for their delicate, anachronistic machines. So why is it Hublot that gets singled out for all the hate?
Well, aside from some of the things we've already mentioned, there also exists the opinion that the watches aren't that well finished. I have tried on a Hublot and admittedly I didn't look at it through a macro lens, but I didn't see anything obviously wrong with it, in fact I rather liked it. I don't think I would pay £12,000 for it or whatever it was, but then I doubt I would pay that for any watch because it's outside of my personal comfort zone. And I do wonder how many people who espouse this 'popular' view have actually gone to a store and physically experienced a Hublot or are they just parroting and propagating 'second hand opinion' because it fits in with their own preconceived ideas?
Recently 'Bark and Jack' put out a YouTube video purporting to take an 'honest' look at Hublot and why the watch community hate them so much. It was quite annoying from the off with Adrian claiming he 'naturally avoids anything popular' and always 'roots for the underdog' - a claim he was utterly roasted for in the comments by many of his followers incidentally:
Adrian - 'I naturally distance myself from anything popular'
Also Adrian - Rolex Rolex Rolex Tudor Tudor Tudor
In the video he did show some poor finishing on the back of one of the watch hands, which admittedly isn't very good on a watch that costs what it costs - but at the same time they are not the only ones guilty of this kind of slapdashery... and it was on the back of the hand, so it was only visible when it was reflected on a polished surface. Not that that is an excuse of course, but I'm pretty sure no one would ever have noticed this had the watch not been filmed using a macro lens. I mean, it's not like they sent it out with a big scratch down the dial or anything.... again it slightly feels like finding something you want to find to support the case you've already decided the outcome of in advance.
He then went on to pull the typical bullshit argument that always gets right up my nose, it goes like this; why would you spend £10,000 on a Hublot when you could buy a Vacheron Constantin. It is so much nicer and the finishing is superb. Maybe so, but it's not a reasonable 'alternative' to a Hublot.
Why is it that people never present an appropriate alternative for things they don't personally like. If someone says they want a Hublot people always say 'Oh no, you don't want that, you want something which I find much more tasteful even though it's absolutely nothing like the thing you want', which is basically saying 'You have too much money and not enough taste, you should buy what I would buy if I had your money and my exquisite taste'.
It would be different if they said 'You know Hublot isn't that well made (in my opinion), but if you like that style why don't you look at the Royal Oak Offshore from AP (a well respected brand) or something similar', but they never do... because the idea that anyone would actually want a watch with a rubber strap and carbon fibre all over it is anathema to them.
And there's the rub, people hate Hublot not 'because' they don't think they are well made, or because they use ETA movements (that's just a convenient stick to beat them with), they really hate them because they haven't been around since the 1800s (and thus no 'heritage' models or design language), because rappers wear them, because they use too much colourful ceramic, because they do too much marketing (something also levelled at TAG Heuer incidentally) and also because they aren't Rolex, AP, Vacheron, JLC, or whichever other watchbrand is their icon of choice.
And the argument that Hublot's prices are ridiculous is a redundant one. You can say the same about almost any luxury good you can think of. Richard Mille gets the same grief, but what people fail to grasp is that Richard Mille used to be much cheaper; he took a massive gamble and put his prices way up reasoning that it would make his products more desirable and it paid off big time. You could probably rightly argue that Hublot offer something not much better than TAG Heuer at 2-3 times the price... but in the luxury goods world more expensive = more exclusive, and to some people that is more important than the quality of the actual product.
But since when did companies price their products depending on where they fall on some fictional scale of how 'good' they are? Maybe in the very distant past but not since the advent of marketing and brand awareness. Christopher Ward can sell you an automatic watch with a sapphire crystal and a ceramic bezel for less than the price of a quartz TAG Heuer Formula 1, but they simply don't have the brand recognition that TAG do and their products are priced accordingly. Unfortunately whether you like it or not that is the reality of the modern age and nowhere more can that be seen than in the prices of pre-owned steel Rolex.
It may be true that a lot of Hublot's customers aren't 'watch nerds', but so what? If they are happy with their watches - which admittedly may be seen more as jewellery than horology, well is that such a terrible thing? At least they are buying watches and supporting the industry, and nobody is making anyone who doesn't like them buy them so what really is the big issue?
Price point is about so much more than quality these days, so it seems unduly unfair to point out Hublot's 'flaws' and 'poor value' when most Swiss watch brands are doing the same things in varying degrees of subtlety; cutting costs, raising prices, outsourcing production to China, offering less choice, and it's not as if TAG Heuer or Tudor (to name just two, we could also throw Breitling into the mix here) are above using brand ambassadors is it? But somehow Hublot and TAG Heuer are ridiculed for it while Tudor (in particular) seem to have this shroud of protection over them. Like when they made that godawful dive watch prototype thing they shat out the other year, the watch community choked on it but effectively swept it under the carpet and vowed never to speak of it again. If TAG Heuer or Hublot had made it you can bet your bottom dollar we'd still be hearing about it now and how rubbish it really was. And if TAG Heuer or Hublot had teamed up with Lady Gaga, well...
NB: Micro rotor logo, how cool is that?
Anyway, I've waffled on long enough... I can't believe I have spent so long defending a brand I don't have particularly strong feelings about either way, but I will say this - I would NEVER choose a V.C. Overseas over a Big Bang, I don't care how much better finished it is. The Big Bang may have a basic movement and slightly ropey finishing on the backs of the hands but it looks great and besides the bezel on the Overseas is an abomination!
And that really is all I have to say on the matter... for now.
FURTHER READING
On the Wrist: Hublot Big Bang Black Magic / Unico Golf / Classic Fusion Black Magic
On the Wrist: Hublot Big Bang Carbon Fibre Dial Watch
Well done, I enjoyed your take on the subject.
ReplyDeleteHi Dom
DeleteGlad you enjoyed it!
Rob
Thank you for teaching me new word. Anachronistic !
ReplyDelete