This sentiment was discussed in an article I just read (about JLC, though it ranges across a number of brands):

https://quillandpad.com/2024/11/07/jaeg ... popular-2/

Made me wonder what people's thoughts are on CW, since there are a lot of 'new arrivals to the brand' who may perceive that CW is defined by the Bel Canto?

FWIW, discussing how a company is 'branded' bores me a bit - especially nowadays when everything is branded including people and I end up feeling like I'm being sold a marketing idea rather than a watch...

Anyway. Also FWIW, I'd take the Trident 300 as being the primary CW 'entry level watch', (you might disagree), and I think that the trident C60 divers are very accomplished watches for 'entry level' watches. I've said before that I think cases and bracelets are important, and the case for me makes the trident 300 a more handsome and attractive entry level watch than the Oris divers 65 (for example) - lovely dials, meh on the cases imo. Of course, Oris are offering 'in house movements' in their 'entry level watches' now, and YMMV on how important that is to you.

I think that CW have grown their trident line wisely over the years, and I think that the Teident 300 is a very strong basis for (a) progress across time into the future; and (b) exploration into higher priced watches like the lumiere. There are always voices along the way declaring that CW 'shouldn't' be producing £4k watches (like it's morally indefensible and a dereliction of their customers), but CW seem - as ever - to be pretty strongly committed to their 'entry level' watches.

Tell ne what you think about 'entry level watches' from any brand. Tell me if you entered the CW fray with a Bel Canto or a trident, and tell me if you think that matters

This is quite a thought provoking post and his given me pause to reevaluate how I look at CW lately. I think over the past year or two, I’ve time and time again looked at CW through the lens of the Bel Canto, the Twelve, and now the Lumiere….you know, the big ticket items. And through that lens, I’ve lost a bit on interest in CW because those watches (and those prices in some cases!) are not for me.

But have I been so distracted by the attention grabbers that I’ve lost sight of the meat and potatoes of the brand?! The C60 300 s an amazing watch, beautiful in all regards - case, bracelet, bezel action, etc. I think it’s that watch and the C65, and their variants that define the brand. And with those watches, the ethos that has always defined CW is still there - tremendous value for money.

I’m rambling at this point, I think, so I’ll leave it here.

A lot of attention is on the high end watches - great to generate interest but not entry level watches. I realise I've been distracted by the recent high end options and forgotten how many watches CW sell at reasonable prices - I was actually surprised when I looked!

C63 Sealander, C60 and C65 are good options and all accessible with a price under £1000. For me the Sealander might not be anything groundbreaking but well built and looks great. The current options allow for keeping it simple with white or black dials, plus two sizes but providing some more adventurous colours and GMT options. And at £685 on a leather strap for the 39mm it really is great value. I've owned a few (some sold for space reasons) and if my watch box wasn't overflowing and I didn't have enough CW's already I''d still be tempted by one!

The need for a 'legacy' style model that will remain a forever part of the catalogue has been discussed here a few times, and I agree that watch probably has to be the Trident. But CW has recently 'mixed and matched' with the Sealander, Aquitaine and Trident, so the Tridents uniqueness has been diluted. As time passes I think only the Trident should continue, as they're all pretty much alike in any case. Even changing the hands would be a start.

I'm not sure that a brand is defined by it's most "entry level" product but would suggest that it's the most iconic/recognisable product. Often the one they still talk about when the current line-up is a long way down the development road. When Land Rover launched the new Defender, they referenced the 1948 Series 1 (though of course it only became the S1 when the Series 2 was introduced). Now, very few current owners would actually want a S1 Land Rover, but it's the history and the imagery that creates the brand.
The BMW MINI clearly references the Issigonis design, though there's no real connection. But the branding is clear.

Have CW produced an iconic or defining model yet? I'm not so sure. The Trident could be a contender, but maybe the answer will be clearer a few years down the line. I doubt that I'm the only person to think that a bit more model longevity would be a sign of maturity as a brand.

Entry level watches tend to differ across manufacturers. For most manufacturers I’d argue they offer a range of styles and each has its own entry level watch so there isn’t one specific entry level watch for them.

Take my favourite brand IWC. I’ll bet most of you have read the last sentence and already decided that IWC’s entry level watch is their mark series. However IWC offer 5 core ranges and each one has a range of watches from entry level to higher end.

Let’s start with their pilots, we have the marks, then the chronographs, little big pilots and big big pilots, before reaching their perpetual calendars. They range from around £4.5k to £45k

However they also offer their dressier portofino range and the basic three hander is priced very close to the mark. You can also get portofino chronographs, gold versions, and ones with a fancy 8 day power reserve.

The Portugueser range also starts with a simple small seconds version at about £6.4k and goes through chronographs, precious metal, right up to more perpetual calendars.

The Aquatimer and Ingeniuer ranges are smaller but previously they have also been offered in a variety of versions from three handers upwards.

So which IWC is their entry level watch? I’d argue they have one for each range and there is no single entry level IWC.

To bring this back to CW and the subject of your question. Are they doing what IWC do and offering entry level watches across different ranges?

We have the basic 12, the titanium, and the two new skeleton versions with SH21 movements.

Their dive range has had basic three handers, GMTs, bronze, COSC, apex, concept and SH 21 versions.

Could the sealander range be developed into something similar?

To follow the law of the forum and bring the Bel Canto into the discussion. Where does this fit in? Is it a halo model for all CWs or is it the entry level for some as yet to be unleashed range? Will we get the long wished for (by some) minute repeater? Will the watch being teased with the balance wheel on show be something that along with the BC forms CWs top range in the way the Portugueser line does for IWC? Is the BC the entry watch level for this new higher end range and we just don’t know yet?

I struggle with the whole ‘entry level’ concept. To me that sounds like you’re buying a brand, not a watch. That’s pretty close to the definition of snobbery, isn’t it? Brands have different watches with prices that vary. If you like a model, and are willing to spend what it costs you buy it.
For me CW *is* the Trident range, but what with the Twelve and Bel Canto it seems to me they are the face of CW to a lot of people.

Wis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:39 pm I struggle with the whole ‘entry level’ concept. To me that sounds like you’re buying a brand, not a watch. That’s pretty close to the definition of snobbery, isn’t it? Brands have different watches with prices that vary. If you like a model, and are willing to spend what it costs you buy it.
For me CW *is* the Trident range, but what with the Twelve and Bel Canto it seems to me they are the face of CW to a lot of people.

Funnily enough I was having this exact train of thought earlier. Only watch collectors tier watches in to entry level; mid tier and high end. Joe public, the largest watch buying demographic would not even be aware of these bands of watch quality. They buy on two criteria and two criteria alone: design and price. Sometimes it's hard to think as a non watch collector; those other folk occupy a different universe.

Des

strapline wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:19 pm

Wis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:39 pm I struggle with the whole ‘entry level’ concept. To me that sounds like you’re buying a brand, not a watch. That’s pretty close to the definition of snobbery, isn’t it? Brands have different watches with prices that vary. If you like a model, and are willing to spend what it costs you buy it.
For me CW *is* the Trident range, but what with the Twelve and Bel Canto it seems to me they are the face of CW to a lot of people.

Funnily enough I was having this exact train of thought earlier. Only watch collectors tier watches in to entry level; mid tier and high end. Joe public, the largest watch buying demographic would not even be aware of these bands of watch quality. They buy on two criteria and two criteria alone: design and price. Sometimes it's hard to think as a non watch collector; those other folk occupy a different universe.

Des

And even for many collectors the idea surely must be odd. But I guess it is a more polite way of saying cheapest model …

I agree with @exHowfener that brands surely are identified with or defined by their most well known model or models, not the cheapest. So for CW that would now probably be the Bel Canto? Which will likely make more buy cheaper CWs, as some of the gold dust of the Bel Canto rubs off on the rest of the range.

I like the idea of the entry level watch, but I think it's the quality rather than the price of the entry level watch.

So entry level might be the sealander, the dune, or the 300. I think those three compare very well with the entry level offering of any other swiss watch. I think you have to compare swiss watches. Clearly CW can't beat San Martin for instance on price, but the Swiss Made badge has a connotation of it's own.

Perhaps some of us with a number of watches no longer need entry level watches, and the watches we are attracted to may be different in each case, so it's hard to generalize.

Wis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:20 pm But I guess it is a more polite way of saying cheapest model …

in the article I quoted the discussion was mostly about the cheapest models that a company produces, and that's the spirit in which I was opening the discussion. But there's plenty to discuss about the term itself

Wis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:20 pm I agree with @exHowfener that brands surely are identified with or defined by their most well known model or models, not the cheapest. So for CW that would now probably be the Bel Canto?

My thinking is that there's danger in a watch company letting themselves be 'defined' by their most well known model , if that model outshines for a time the rest of what's going on with a brand - at least in the eyes of the people who are drawn in for the first time to buy it.
In other words, for CW the Bel Canto rightly shines bright in the CW firmament. But I don't think you can guarantee any 'trickle down effect' that makes sure that people who arrive for the Bel Canto won't just leave again once they've bought one. The people who have responded to this question so far (forgive me for saying it) are the old lags who probably entered the brand with a C5 quartz

So I'm interested to hear from people who arrived here via the Bel Canto route too - what have you found about the wider company? Or is it the one watch only that interests you?

I'd also say that I do disagree with the broad statement that brands are necessarily "defined" by their cheapest watches - but perhaps it's truer to say that a brand might have a stand-out best known model (submariner, reverso, whatever), but that will never be enough to carry a brand unless they can show across time that they consistently do their cheapest watches well and to an equally exacting standard?

A restaurant may develop a reputation for their wagyu beef, and people might get drawn in to make a booking who wouldn't have visited the restaurant (or even eaten wagyu beef) otherwise. But at the same time they should never forget to make sure they're cooking the boiled potatoes perfectly? .....


Right - I'm done with overthinking the watch industry again .... I'm interested in marketing , media, 'influence' and how it all plays out. But CW have a very strong serving of 'entry level' watches on the menu imo

Setting aside that I dislike the term “entry level” as much as I dislike the term “first luxury” watch, I will offer four models that in many ways define their brands..

Rolex - Datejust.
Christopher Ward - Bel Canto.
Patek Philippe - Nautilus.
Audamers Piguet - Royal Oak.

I imagine that Rolex and CW would be happy enough with that association, but PP and AP certainly would not.

Neil

@nbg
That brought a nostalgic smile. Back in my ignorant pre-watch days Rolex was one of the few “luxury” brands I had heard of. For some reason I presumed that all Rolexes were Datejusts and went with the red braces, cellphone brick and red Porsche. I knew nothing of their other offerings, including the Submariners. I hadn’t made the Apollo/Omega connexion either.

I’m against the term “entry level” for various reasons.

I also agree with the view expressed by others that not everyone who buys a watch of any make is a brand-focused, or brand-loyal, collector.

I wonder to what extent people who just want a watch, one watch, you know, to tell the time (they walk among us, apparently, and I’ve heard it said they might even be quite numerous) would even look at a Bel Canto. I think they’d make much more sense of a Trident or Sealander.

@missF thank you for sharing a very interesting article. I'm in agreement with lots of the comments above, won't specifically tag them since it will result in a big reply of "@s", and even before I write this reply I know it might be waffle with no end, but here goes...

I agree with several comments above that I don't think "entry level" - which I take to mean "cheapest watch" - defines a brand. Instead there's a distinction between "entry level" and "entry point" into a brand. I agree with the views above that entry point tends to be a brand's most iconic/recognizable watch, the one which draws people into the brand, and in most cases the one the brand tends to market as such.

But what a brand does with that information is an interesting thing. Omega tend to squeeze the Speedmaster for everything it's worth in terms of model variants and typically they're freely available to buy. Patek Philippe seem to actively downplay their Nautilus in an attempt to not end up as a one-trick pony. Rolex exploit the desirability of the Daytona as a means by which to sell their more expensive pieces, in a usually fruitless attempt to buy what is one of their cheaper watches.

One then considers whether that entry point is a "one and done" with the brand or whether it leads to broader purchases with the same brand. I suspect it's a 50/50 call. For example if I bought a Tag Heuer Monaco it would be the former because it's iconic but really the only model of interest for me. With others you become accustomed to the build quality, style etc. and so make repeat purchases. Without straying too far into marketing/branding, one may also become engaged with the company's "philosophy", whatever that means.

It's not lost on me that the above brands (and most that have been discussed on this thread so far) tend to be at the higher end of the scale cost-wise. While they all have some core models, I'm not sure Longines, Hamilton, Oris etc. quite have a defining watch in the same way. Maybe the need for a broader mass market appeal at the different price point has an inverse relationship with the marketing of one or two iconic pieces. This may of course just be because I'm less familiar with these brands though...

What does this mean for CW? I'm certainly caught within the group targeted with your original question, only having become more familiar with CW just over a year ago. It wasn't actually the Bel Canto that led me to the brand, it was the C60, but I would suspect for the vast majority of newcomers these days it is indeed the Bel Canto that's now the entry point. Maybe even new forum membership and new member posts on this forum attest to this.

The question or issue I see is whether the Bel Canto is a "one and done" watch or whether it does generate interest across the rest of the collection? It's certainly different from the rest of the models on offer. Maybe the Bel Canto is atypical in the sense that the other entry point watches I have quoted above don't tend to be at the upper end of a brand's price points whereas the Bel Canto is at the upper end of CW's offerings. It might indeed have a trickle down effect, or maybe having this "iconic watch" pushes CW generally towards the upper end of "affordable luxury" and into a slightly different price bracket on average, as more recent releases might suggest.

To conclude my ramble, one thing I have observed (in large part thanks to the informative Show us your early CWs! thread) is that there has been a huge variety of CW watches. I have a sense of a brand trying to find its true identity in terms of the ranges on offer and the spot it wants to occupy in the market. This may be because I am unfairly comparing 20 years of history to a snapshot in time, but today as I browse the website I find the ranges on offer to be quite tight and well-defined. I think this helps in the appeal as people hunt for their second or third CW watch "post-Bel Canto".

Best,
TB