Vacheron Constantin

Than that would implicate for me also the continuous tradition which was observed over generations. Therefore the Trinity of Haute Horologie is still untouched and even not touched in any regrads.

To many of the 'Independents' observe the rule of marketing could outperform Haute Horologie - at least in business terms as exemplified by the forerunner Rolex.

Recommendation for the aficionado: Check for the marketing budget of your most favored watch company, as an indication how much watch you would get for your money and how much advertising on the other hand. I heard somewhere, it was at about 30 - 50% at Rolex for a long time.

that there are many better than the trinity !

ALS, FPJ, Kari, Laurent Ferrier at least to name a few...I neither think except for ALS the others even run special events even ,

Best,
Mahesh.,

And as the time goes by, they disappear faster than they could be spotted and hyped.
But they all should be supported. If it's your cup of tea, go for them.

Also, it is exactly how the trinity were when they started & some one believed on their work too just like I believe on today’s independents !!

Btw even today I’m highly doubtful of finishing standards of VC & AP. PP standards are varying to price points - & this is my personal view.

It’s nothing personal, strictly passion rather than business 😜

according the linked articles.  And also automatic watches were considered "unreliable" by this "expert".

The relieability of automatic watches was not there in 1949.
Or which movement and company you are talking about?

And omitting brands from the list because this expert did not have enough experience with them such as Rolex, etc. and not even comparing the watches listed for accuracy, fit and finish, etc. just goes to show that again this is basically an arbitrary list of one person.

Even if Rolex is not listed - there is an explenation for it.
It is a US market study, and I don't think you could judge the marked back then better than the cited expert.

And just for your clarification, I'm not adding my opinion on the best watches of 1949. I am disputing the validity of the Consumer Reports list. No criteria other than some "expert's" opinion? Ok, if you like to take things at face value, but I would rather like to get more context and information before I believe something.  And from the background on the list you yourself provided, it doesn't impress me how Consumer Reports created it.

But nobody wonders if a company is not on the list if it was not present in the marked in a lager scale.
The document is relevant because the expert is judging watches against the US marked with the view of 1949. The higher standard at that time in US was probably Hamilton. On the list are companies above or below Hamilton.

if Consumer Reports asked a different "watch expert", say one who never had any experience with PP, VC, or AP and only knew American brands and some Swiss marques other than the "big 3" such as stalwarts like Touchon and Co. (#5 on that list) and that other expert said Timex was #1, it would be just as valid.  So, that list as is, may be an interesting look at what one person thought at the time, but just that...one opinion.  Heck, they could've at least had people standing outside of Woolworths and Macys asking shoppers as they passed by their experience and opinions (more than one!), but they didn't even do that.

That the Top 3 have been winning even against the US competition.
What is your alternative message?

I have no alternative message nor am I advocating any brands over any other, especially back in 1949.  LOL!

The list won't be the same that's most probably right, but the top 3 would stay as it is.

It may be over your head or English may not be your native language (which is not a problem) so I'll just answer your latest reply and then leave it at that.

No message body

Some of you wonder about the brands listed, - it's explainable

other stated it's no more relevant or would look different today, - that's true

others put the Consumers Union publishing irrelevant at all. - what's pointless

For me as a vintage aficionado it holds much more relevant and interesting information:

- Interesting to see the conclusion in the comment, that hand refinement or hand-fitting was regarded old fashioned or a deficit.

- Interesting to see Patek Philippe have been sold via the giant catalog retailer Montgomery Ward. How many would know, that their vintage PP was a 'mail order' watch?

- Interesting to see which of those watches produced in 1949 are regarded higher value today. Those of the dead or almost dead brands have little to almost no value today (C. H. Meylan Watch Co, Touchon & Co, Cresarrow Watch Co, Hamilton Watch Co, Gruen Watch Co, Concord, Tavannes, Lord Elgin, Bulova, Wittenauer, Benrus). That's 2/3 of the total list.

- Interesting to see the PP price back then in US to get an idea what's the speculative part in the today's price structure.

- ...

Read the whole article first, then come up with your opinion about it.

Probably not smart to jump in a discussion like this but can’t resist to do so.

I belief one should place the 1949 survey in the context of that time:

- there was no widespread distribution of knowledge as we know today
- automatic watches were unreliable at that time
- many of today’s brands were not being sold in the US at that time
- manufacturers focused on other key performance indicators and unique selling points than in today’s market

Hence against that background I would argue that:

- yes indeed the survey was actually one experts opinion
- but also yes, most experts at that time given information available would inevitably arrive at the same top 3 as conclusion.

The survey article was shared among us by a watch passionada, wether we read it as an historical document or read it as bit romantic demonstration of how knowledge was distributed back then compared against this forum today, is up to the reader.

Having said all that I must confess that personally I was glad to see VC above AP but that’s because I’m biased LOL

I don't think there was a discussion, not at all. For a discussion you need educated and well informed people.

What I recognize in internet are manly opinions, more often sliding into hate speak if you don't agree with the ultra limited point of view of the counterparts. They even could not got a glimpse of insight, that their settled view might be shortsighted or even completely wrong.

So there are not the independents on the list, not Rolex, not Jaeger-LeCoultre - wonder there was nobody who asking for A. Lange & Söhne. But the article is much more than this list. It is very well done consumer info about wrist watches of that time. The list is the last thing mentioned in the article.

But the reaction shows very well the mood of our time. You can see it anywhere. Look at Banksy's painting (link), it's not only the parliament it's every were. If I give a comment about the list or vintage watches, then I would be able to underpin any statement with facts. But it is a good question if there is any audience left which would justify that effort at all.

Thank you very much for your response Jurry.

No message body