Why do people say you must buy a watch from a brand that traditionally makes watches, and not from a company that specialises in something else and decided to venture into watch-making?

If you are looking at a quartz watch then it doesn't matter one bit because the electronics are available as parts for any brand to stick their logo on. If on the other hand, you are talking about an automatic (mechanical) watch then buying a movement or watch made by an unproven maker is like buying a car that is made by someone outside the auto industry. The truth is it really doesn't matter anymore these days since even mechanical watch movements are available for white label purposes, but around a decade ago- it mattered much more.

It's obnoxious if people say you "must" buy a watch from a brand that traditionally makes watches.  As many others have said, you can buy a very nice-looking watch that is extremely accurate for relatively little money.  And if you like Larsson & Jennings for this reason, buy it and enjoy. Some of us (and probably accurately called us watch snobs) like a watch with some history, from a company that has a tradition of making watches.  A company that has invested years and sometimes millions of dollars in creating a new mechanical watch design, that is well made, accurate, and pleasant to look at.  These watches cost a lot, and many would argue for no good reason.  Others would argue the pleasure of owning and admiring a fine machine like a luxury mechanical movement is worth the cost.  There is no "correct" point of view to this issue.

There are many ways to answer this question. If you want to wear a watch just to tell time, it doesn't really matter what watch you get. Any quartz watch is going to tell accurate time, although the quality varies drastically. You don't expect some new brand to know what is needed to make a good durable watch. It can look good but it may also spoil the next day after you wore it in the rain or dropped it on the floor. If you want to wear a watch as a fashion accessory, which is probably what you're looking at judging from your question, brands definitely play a part. Take clothes for example, you can wear a shirt but the brand makes the difference, both to yourself and to those around you. The quality is going to be different, trust me, you will feel the difference between a $100 dollar watch and a $10,000 watch. It's about tiny details that goes into the watch which just make it better to wear. It also really depends on what crowd you are mixing in. If your crowd wears gap they are not going to give a damn about the brand of your watch. If your crowd wears prada or zegna they are going to notice a rolex or a lange on your wrist. This is purely on the fashion side of things. If you're looking at quality of watch then there is no way, not even close, that some company can make a watch which is anywhere near the quality of one made by some company which has been doing it for generations.

I think there is three reason that, 1. is assurance to them as they are old and established as a company that from the old years produce to famous people.2. is related to fashion and mode, " if you are wearing classic clothes or near to it, that's better to buy watches from large companies". it is like that you like old radio but indeed you don't use it just like some old technologic even that rarely to using it. and 3. is the some technical case as waterproof and high quality watches doesn't need to fixing. Actually, there is no necessity to agree them. because some technical case as waterproof case is very normal to do it for every company anymore. fashion and mode doesn't need to constant norms, nowadays we have a lot of very modern designers. Like old technology is completely change to every bodies life style. and some large and old companies in new designing of watches they are designing like Diesel, Nike, Adidas and some like that. correspondingly they are changes styles and designs. Apple company is very new to compare with some companies as IBM, and now IBM pursued it. there is one difference that some products like watches is not like computers or other technologic product it is a little artistic.

The question comes down to brand equity. If one wants to be completely objective and meritocratic about it, you can buy any product with any brand name on it, just as long as it does what you bought it for. Would you buy a Levi's branded car, or a McDonald's branded laptop? If it looks and performs just as well as any other comparable product available and the price suits you, then why not? However, we are assuming that Levi's does not have car-manufacturing expertise, and that McDonald's doesn't have laptop-manufacturing expertise, which is why we buy Toyota (or whatever) cars and Dell (or whatever) computers. We believe that since our knowledge of these companies precludes such production capabilities, we're better off giving our money to companies with established names in the business. When people advise against buying watches made by non-traditional brands, this is the exact same phenomenon. There is some truth to it. Watch aficionados can tell, even if you wipe the logo off the dial, if a watch was made by companies who've been in the business for a while. There is a certain fitness to design, finish, proportions, that comes readily to companies such as Rolex, Patek Philippe, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Audemars Piguet, or newer companies that are led by and filled with industry longtimers, such as Laurent Ferrier, Jaquet Droz, Greubel Forsey. The problem is that you have to know the industry quite well in order to know which new companies have expertise you can trust. Cartier, for example, are a historical luxury house who have been producing and selling watches for a long time, but they only just recently started manufacturing the mechanical movements needed to power their watches. (Previously they bought movements to inhabit their beautifully designed watch cases, a common practice then and now throughout the industry.) Just because they only started developing technical know-how in the last 7 years doesn't mean that they're in any way mechanically deficient, however. Far from it — they're kicking horological ass all over the place. For most people, however, none of this matters. They want something that tells the time and can be worn on the wrist and that they think looks good — they're not bothered about heritage or mechanical credibility or historical patrimony and that's entirely their prerogative. People who aren't that bothered about wine will be happy to drink something they think is tasty, whether or not the vineyard's been established for hundreds of years. It really is, at the end of the day, an issue of priorities and is highly subjective. People assume you should have the same priorities that they do, but why should you? If you truly love and admire mechanical watches and want to own a piece of that tradition, why let yourself be put off by people who sniff at what they term "extravagance" and tough-talk about their practical purchases? If you really are just into a watch that you think looks nice and that you can easily afford to replace, why be swayed by soi-disant "purists" who imply that your lack of a "serious" timepiece somehow means you are not a person to be taken seriously?

People recommend to buy watches from a brand that has traditionnally been making them because when an external brand chooses to diversity into watches, it either pays a manufacturer or gets paid by a manufacturer for the venture product. That upmark is charged to you as a customer