[tony20009]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

First off, I sincerely want to thank you for the detailed response. Reading it made me realize more about what I would like out of a watch, and you taught me finer points I did not know (such as the issue with rubber straps, service costs, and usability drawbacks). I have many questions to ask next time I go in to browse.

May I ask why watch "snobs" have issues with Hublot?

...

After reading your post I still have lots of reading to do to be as informative as you. Once again thank you very much.

Cheers!

You're welcome. I'm glad the post gave you some things to consider. My intent with nearly all my watch posts is to give folks info and let them make their own choices.

Red:
The short is that you probably need to ask an actual watch snob that question if you want the sophistic specifics. I'm a watch collector and as such I appreciate watches, nearly all of them, for what they are, not for what they are not but that I think they should be. That is the best general description I can give you for what distinguishes a watch snob from a watch collector.

Over the years, I've observed various behaviors that suggest an individual may be a watch snob. Among them:

• Applauding makers who produce their watches "in house," but ignoring the fact that the "darling" makers of watches snobs (PP, AP, VC, ALS, Rolex, Omega, and some others) until fairly recently weren't in-house at all and that they are now is more a business necessity due to industry consolidation than a deliberate choice on their part. Makers hype the fact that they do their own work and watch snobs buy the hype, but don't really know (or do and ignore it) the hypocrisy behind it.
  
  FWIW, "in house" watchmaking capability matters in one situation: when one wants to have a watch custom made. One can contact Rolex, Gallet, Omega, Patek, and others and commission a watch to whatever specifications one has. If the buyer is willing to pay what the maker wants to charge, any watch manufacture will accept a commission. That's just not possible with most if not all non-in-house makers.
• They deride watches/watchmakers for not being in-house, and talk about the excellence of makers like Patek and JLC, but ignore the fact that Seiko was in-house from day one as was Swatch, Citizen, and a number of other low cost makers.
• They ignore or are oblivious to the business imperatives that drive the industry. For example, they'll discover that many makers are subsidiaries of large conglomerates and speak of them in terms analogous to "a Lexus is just an expensive Toyota." It's true that there is sharing among brands in a conglomerate, but from a business standpoint, that's not a bad thing, and for the consumer it's not at all a given that it's a bad thing.
• They'll express thoughts that suggest that everyone who spends a tidy sum on a watch should "understand" or "know" watches. It's completely lost on them that many folks just have money to spend and buy what they buy because they want to and can. It's as though they think that being wealthy enough to afford a pricey watch is supposed to also be accompanied by being interested in watches. I ask you, how interested do you think well off businessmen are in, say, shirts even though they may buy custom made ones? Mostly well off folks don't care about much of the pricey stuff they buy, but they buy it because they know it's nice and don't have to think about whether it'll serve their needs as they expect it to. If they actually cared, they'd likely buy less pricey stuff that would serve just as effectively, but to do that, they'd have to do some research. Quite frankly wealthy people (the ones that aren't yet wealthy enough to dictate their own work hours and schedules) usually have more money than time, so going to Sak's is just less work than figuring out that "so and so" offer equally nice shirts (or whatever) for far less.
• They'll talk about brands rather than specific watches and they hold as synonymous a brand and a company in situations where the distinction is relevant. They'll also speak/write of makers as though the only watch the maker offers is the one (or two) they know about.
• Thinking that a more expensive watch is generally a better and nicer watch.
• Deriding very rock solid watch movements as undesirable because they are/were widely available, not because there was/is something actually deficient about them.
• Assuming/advocating that a more finely finished or elaborately decorated watch is somehow better because of the finishing rather than seeing the finishing as something that is done after a maker has produced an excellently designed/engineered machine that they have elected to also decorate elaborately.
• Thinking that more finishing equals better watch rather than it just equaling more finishing.
• Watch snobs want to tell you what brands (occasionally items) to buy or not buy rather than sharing specific pros and cons resulting from experience and/or personal observations about specific items/models and leaving the choice up to you. (That's so of snobs of all sorts, not just watch snobs.)
• Making a big deal about finishing elements -- so much so that listening to them, one'd get the impression that the only thing that matters in a watch is finishing -- that really are no big deal at all. For example, Geneva stripes or blued screws.
• Ranting on and on about any of the above without the appropriate perspective.

The last bullet point above holds the key: perspective. Watch snobs just don't approach watches from an accurate or fair perspective.

With watches of a certain ilk and that are sought by a certain type of collector, for example, all the finer points of finishing, pedigree, history, whether a maker can produce its wares in house or not, and so on are very important.

Take a collector whose focus is finishing. That person may identify low cost pieces that exemplify selected elements of fine finishing ("selected" because at low cost, finishing can only go so far) at their respective price levels and s/he will appreciate them for what they are, even if the watch and its functionality isn't "the best" possible at that price point. They are collecting for the finishing, not the timekeeping. That same collector might also include in their collection a Patek and other high end watches that offer even finer degrees of finishing. The collector again, however, is collecting for the finishing technique and execution not whether the watch has silicon parts that will help reduce wear and lengthen the intervals between servicing.

So while the finishing is important to that collector, how well his watches are finished for as nice as it may seem, doesn't necessarily make the watches s/he chooses the best choice for someone who wants a very fine watch to wear every day.



(Hublot Classic Fusion -- no lume on the hands)


As for Hublot in particular, as best as I can tell, watch snobs rag on Hublot mainly because it has some design features that roughly resemble those of the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak. This even as they, for example, quite likely own and wear a trench coat that is not a Burberry but basically looks more like one than does an Hublot Big Bang or Classic Fusion resemble an RO. They don't see that the two don't look very similar at all when seen side by side.









(notice that the Hublot above has a solid lumed area in its hands and that will help with low light legibility to a point)


Hublot's isn't the only watch to somewhat resemble the Royal Oak...





...And yet folks just love IWC's Ingy, a watch that actually resembles the RO because it was designed by the same man, Gerald Genta. Nevermind that the idea of exposed bezel screws is one that first appeared around 1913 on a Cartier that was sold and discontinued before Mr. Genta was even a twinkle in his parents' eyes.

IMO, snobs see Hublot's most popular models as looking similar to the RO, costing less, and not being (in the past) in-house made. They speak of Hublot watches as though the values of, say, that hypothetical finishing collector I described above should be the values everyone and every pricey watchmaker should espouse.

Blue:
If you are looking to become a collector, I'd suggest starting with this book or one very similar to it: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/hist...=2672201566883 .

Once you've gotten an accurate and non-marketing driven overview of horological history, you'll no doubt have a better idea of what about watches appeals to you. With those ideas in your mind, seek out a book or two that specifically address those things. It may be a maker, a style, a type of watch, a complications, etc. It may be something as simple as a motif (birds, dogs, ships, etc.) or a country (America -- http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Ma.../dp/B001MCD7FU).

Motif Example:
I'm not a motif collector, but I have an acquaintance who's not especially "into" watches and who doesn't collect them per se. She's "into" elephants and will buy damn near anything that depicts or is in the shape of an elephant. (She doesn't want a live elephant, however....and thank God for that. LOL She bought a medium sized stuffed one though....)

She has several watches with elephant imagery on them, and they're rather nice. One is a Cartier purple and grey Ballon Bleu and another is a VC&A elephant motif watch that is one of ~20 made. Even so, I don't think she knows all that much about watches, but based on how many elephant baubles she wears and how many elephant household decorative items she displays, her jeweler and her favorite gallery curators are well aware she's "into" elephants. LOL

Conclusion:
Please note that not every trait I noted above is going to be present in every snob. What I've shared is just a general set of observations. It's also worth noting that some folks may say/do snobby things and not really know it, others may not even know why they are doing it. There's no question that some "snobs" do actually know something about watches. On occasion, for example, Archie Luxury and The Watch Snob do impart very good information, and I have no doubt they both do in fact know a good deal more about watches than what appears in their published works; they are after all paid to affect a persona. What they rarely do, however, is put that information in context so that readers/viewers can make use of it appropriately or disregard it when it's not applicable. Be that as it may, hopefully, if nothing else the preceding will give you a rough sense of what it is that snobs don't like about Hublot (or other watches) as well as giving you some insight into when you're hearing/reading what is just snobbery vs. what is good input.

All the best.