The Counterintuitive Benefit of Buying a More Expensive Watch

“More expensive” does not always mean “better”, but there is a counterintuitive aspect in buying “cheap” products. It often makes more economical sense to buy “premium” products.

For example, my mother has been buying herself a new quartz watch every 5 to six years. She usually waits for sales to buy a $ 300 Seiko or Citizen for $ 150 to 200.

Then after 2 to 3 years when the battery has died, she goes to a cobbler to have it replaced.

These operators are no trained watchmakers, so they will simply snap the case back open, remove the battery, fit a new one and snap the case closed. Et voilà !

The problem is that they run no diagnostic on the movement. There could have been an electric or a mechanical issue causing the battery to lose charge abnormally, but they won’t find out. They could also be short-circuiting the hardware if they manipulate the battery with their fingers or with metal pliers. And finally, they perform no water-resistance check on the gaskets, which sometimes wear out and need to be replaced.

The consequence is that after a few battery changes my mother’s quartz watches eventually stop working, and the cost of hiring a watchmaker to look into it (let’s say $ 75 for the sake of the argument) would come close to the price of buying a new watch, so my mother looks for a sale, buys her new watch and forgets about the last one.

If this has been her purchasing strategy for the last 45 years, she is likely to have spent 7,5 * $ 180 = $ 1,350. Let’s also add $ 15 for a battery change every 3 year and we have $ 1,350 + $ 225 = $ 1,575.

Of course this is a gross calculation because I am not factoring in inflation or indexation.

But if the cost of a professionally carried out battery replacement and servicing would be $ 50 (including diagnosis, water-resistance and new gaskets), then over 45 years my mother would have spent $ 750 to keep the same watch running. Throw in a new bracelet at $ 100 every 15 years (3 * $ 100) and she would have been able to spend $ 525 on a watch. Since she always buys on sale, she would for example have been able to buy an $ 875 watch at -40%, or a $ 1,050 watch at -50%.

Basically, what my calculation is trying to show is that in the long run it would “cost” my mother exactly the same to buy a $ 300 or a $ 1,000 watch on sale, because the quality of the latter would generate less expense and even it out in the long run.

Also, there are a few $ 1,000 that are much nicer to wear than $ 300 ones, so why spend the same money in the long run for less enjoyment?