Grand Seiko SBRO83 vs Omega Aqua Terra Skyfall 41.5mm

[Highland Ranger]

Depends on where you are in the journey whether brand might matter. For some it never matters, for others it may matter at some point, then later less so as your concern for what others think diminishes.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[lapince]

Originally Posted by madmax21

There's no question in my mind that Grand Seiko is an exceptionally well made watch that deserves a ton of credit. However as I've stated before I personally would not buy one and the reason is because of its association with Seiko department store quality watches.

Please allow me to explain. I believe that A quality watch is one thing but when I wear a watch the brand means a lot to me as well. I think of the history behind the watch. I feel the name brings something big to the table think of a Maserati then compare it to say Hyundai although the brand has come a long long way even making presidential limousines fit for presidents. unfortunately the brand comes with a stigma and when I wear a watch the name and history of it makes me feel different wearing it. I hope you understood what I'm trying to say as I never want to offend anyone forever wearing a Grand Seiko I feel they a
Make a super great watch and if it makes you feel good wearing it by all means wear it with pride and always in good health. Best Regards to all

I feel exactly the same way, I could not buy the "quality segment" of a brand which also makes a ton of crappy watches, for me and until they stop making the cheap ones and even if I get that they are very good watches the name Seiko will still be associated in a way with a negative meaning, they probably make most of their money on the crappy ones, so don't think that will stop soon but as far as I know Omega doesn't make crappy 200 dollar watches, but Seiko does and that kills the brand for me, again if you like them don't hesitate, it's just my point of view

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by madmax21

There's no question in my mind that Grand Seiko is an exceptionally well made watch that deserves a ton of credit. However as I've stated before I personally would not buy one and the reason is because of its association with Seiko department store quality watches.

Please allow me to explain. I believe that A quality watch is one thing but when I wear a watch the brand means a lot to me as well. I think of the history behind the watch. I feel the name brings something big to the table think of a Maserati then compare it to say Hyundai although the brand has come a long long way even making presidential limousines fit for presidents. unfortunately the brand comes with a stigma and when I wear a watch the name and history of it makes me feel different wearing it. I hope you understood what I'm trying to say as I never want to offend anyone forever wearing a Grand Seiko I feel they a
Make a super great watch and if it makes you feel good wearing it by all means wear it with pride and always in good health. Best Regards to all

Is luxury when it comes to watches a standard of quality? Or is luxury what marketing told you it is and how successful that marketing is at separating you from the greatest amount of your money as possible?

In the end the supposed Seiko stigma you've described is due in large part to a cultural divide, unawareness of history and purpose, and differences in marketing that results in brand-name conditioning.

Grand Seiko's studios have a 55-year history of making watches, and their luxury-level fit and finish standards have never been in question for those who've been aware of them. After their inception back then they quickly began to match and then beat the Swiss in the accuracy department as well (Observatory tests) so the idea that Seiko "has come a long way" as far as making superior product was put to bed before most of us around here were born to learning to tell time.

Which was and is the entire point of Grand Seiko in the first place; to showcase the Company's watchmaking ability and skills in artistry, workmanship, and technology. That's the reason why they didn't brand them as something else as some like yourself who believe there's a stigma to the Seiko (and therefore think it was some kind of marketing mistake on their part). On the contrary, the Grand Seiko studios and their output were, and are, a matter of Company pride. Chalk it up to cultural differences when it comes to marketing something, but they WANT people to know they are part of Seiko, and the people they primarily wanted to know were primarily those they were selling them to. Grand Seiko (or Credor) never existed for the purpose of flooding the world-wide marketplace and selling as many units as they could. That's what the rest of Seiko does. That's what Rolex does.

That's where the stigma borne of unawareness comes in. Until recently (meaning about 5 years ago), almost every one of the 5 - 10,000 Grand Seikos produced yearly up until then were gobbled-up domestically in Japan or in the other few Asian locales they were sold. Outside that limited market most didn't know a thing about them for 50 of the 55 years they've been around existing as a superior, luxury watch.

The others definitely feigning unawareness was the Swiss luxury watch-making industry. By the late 60's stock Grand Seiko's were beating their tweaked Swiss movements offered for accuracy testing left and right. This was the reason behind the Swiss circling the wagons and creating the looser, but (most importantly) Swiss-only COSC standard of accuracy they rely on now.

The Swiss couldn't stand that anyone else could be, as you put it, "bringing something big to the table" and so their response was to essentially create their own private club and tables and continue marketing the hell out of their products using celebrities and movie placement deals.

Grand Seiko is expanding, if you want to call it that. It's yearly output of around 15K mechanical watches is still minuscule compared to the almost a million Rolexes or hundreds of thousands of Omegas, but at least their marketing still focuses on what makes them great; quality, workmanship, and precision. I don't need a fake movie spy (or the memory of a former one) telling me what's luxury or not.

Just go ahead and get one and see for yourself.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by lapince

I feel exactly the same way, I could not buy the "quality segment" of a brand which also makes a ton of crappy watches, for me and until they stop making the cheap ones and even if I get that they are very good watches the name Seiko will still be associated in a way with a negative meaning, they probably make most of their money on the crappy ones, so don't think that will stop soon but as far as I know Omega doesn't make crappy 200 dollar watches, but Seiko does and that kills the brand for me, again if you like them don't hesitate, it's just my point of view

Seiko makes great $200 watches, not crappy ones. They have great quality value if what you're going to spend on a watch is $200. That's a good thing for a company to do and what people want; return for their money.

This is what I mean about a cultural divide in watch marketing. You're basically condemning a Company's more expensive, hand-built-and-finished offerings because another part under the same corporate umbrella does too great a job producing high-quality offerings for lesser price bracket. In many markets and products, some right under your nose, people see it the other way.

Nobody condemns the Cessna Citation line of expensive jets just because they make far cheaper, little propeller airplanes that are also called Cessnas. Nobody thinks high-performance Goodyear, Pirelli, etc racing tires suck just because they also make tires for the masses that are cheaper. On the contrary, the fact that those companies produce more expensive, higher performance offerings of the same product type serve to boost the reputation of the company's less-expensive products, and the higher-performing offerings are judged on performance. In fact, almost all racing sponsorships of vehicle-associated products are built on this type of marketing. They're showcasing their best products.

Last time I checked, Omega, which we're comparing to a GS here, was part of the Swatch Group. You know, inexpensive Swatches. And we mustn't forget about Flikflak watches either. Even cheaper, made for little kids.

Does knowing that make the Omega unappealing? If it doesn't, then it must come down to nothing more than the name "Seiko" being half of the name "Grand Seiko" despite what you know about the watch's performance. In that case, the image problem/stigma isn't that you think the watch isn't good, it's more a matter of you worrying that other people might not think it's an awesome watch because it doesn't fit your conditioned notion of how watch companies should go about naming things.

[MichaelFlash]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Seiko makes great $200 watches, not crappy ones. They have great quality value if what you're going to spend on a watch is $200. That's a good thing for a company to do and what people want; return for their money.

This is what I mean about a cultural divide in watch marketing. You're basically condemning a Company's more expensive, hand-built-and-finished offerings because another part under the same corporate umbrella does too great a job producing high-quality offerings for lesser price bracket. In many markets and products, some right under your nose, people see it the other way.

Nobody condemns the Cessna Citation line of expensive jets just because they make far cheaper, little propeller airplanes that are also called Cessnas. Nobody thinks high-performance Goodyear, Pirelli, etc racing tires suck just because they also make tires for the masses that are cheaper. On the contrary, the fact that those companies produce more expensive, higher performance offerings of the same product type serve to boost the reputation of the company's less-expensive products, and the higher-performing offerings are judged on performance. In fact, almost all racing sponsorships of vehicle-associated products are built on this type of marketing. They're showcasing their best products.

Last time I checked, Omega, which we're comparing to a GS here, was part of the Swatch Group. You know, inexpensive Swatches. And we mustn't forget about Flikflak watches either. Even cheaper, made for little kids.

Does knowing that make the Omega unappealing? If it doesn't, then it must come down to nothing more than the name "Seiko" being half of the name "Grand Seiko" despite what you know about the watch's performance. In that case, the image problem/stigma isn't that you think the watch isn't good, it's more a matter of you worrying that other people might not think it's an awesome watch because it doesn't fit your conditioned notion of how watch companies should go about naming things.

I disagree. Let's accept the fact that any watch that is in the price range or anywhere near the price range of a Grand Seiko is de facto a luxury item. The reality is that it is the exclusivity and not the quality of the brand that is the primary motivator for people purchasing luxury items. Obviously, a certain level of quality must be associated with the brand as well. Your tire example doesn't work because tires don't exist as a luxury item in people's minds. The Cessna example doesn't work because any private plane whether prop or otherwise is considered a luxury if not hyper luxury item. The Swatch corporate umbrella example also doesn't work because people primarily consider the actual brand name, history marketing rather than associating it with the umbrella corporation. An example of this would be Lexus in relation to Toyota. Another would be the Volkswagen Phaeton's failure (which I happened to lease and therefore know what a stunning and incredibly well made car that was). As far as Seiko, the reason most will never consider a Grand Seiko vs a Rolex, Omega, etc. is because in the minds of people their luxury segment derives from the bottom up. What I mean by that is that Seiko is viewed as a cheap watch for the masses that also happens to make more expensive better watches as well. This effectively takes the all important exclusivity equation off the table. In the car industry, Mercedes, BMW already fortified their brands as makers of luxury vehicles before branching out into the lower price points such as c, cla et. So they are seen as a top down brands, makers of high end products who also happen to offer good affordable cars. In addition, even the cheapest Merecedes or BMW is out of reach of most, while a "cheap" Seiko is not, driving down exclusivity even more.

As a watch connoisseur, one can certainly admire and appreciate the beautiful quality of a GS, but brand exclusivity, history and marketing when married to a certain standard of quality will always win out. BTW, I don't think anyone on this thread argued that the GS was a crappy watch but rather implied that the brand Seiko is a crappy brand. From a purely luxury product segment perspective, I beleive that is true. Personally as a watch lover, I will one day sooner rather than later get a GS for my own collection because as with the Phaeton, it's is a helluva well crafted item.

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

Yep, have this one.



And this too. I love them both, but the GS just feels more "special".

It's that snowflake dial. Gosh darn. It gets me every time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[madmax21]

Originally Posted by MichaelFlash

I disagree. Let's accept the fact that any watch that is in the price range or anywhere near the price range of a Grand Seiko is de facto a luxury item. The reality is that it is the exclusivity and not the quality of the brand that is the primary motivator for people purchasing luxury items. Obviously, a certain level of quality must be associated with the brand as well. Your tire example doesn't work because tires don't exist as a luxury item in people's minds. The Cessna example doesn't work because any private plane whether prop or otherwise is considered a luxury if not hyper luxury item. The Swatch corporate umbrella example also doesn't work because people primarily consider the actual brand name, history marketing rather than associating it with the umbrella corporation. An example of this would be Lexus in relation to Toyota. Another would be the Volkswagen Phaeton's failure (which I happened to lease and therefore know what a stunning and incredibly well made car that was). As far as Seiko, the reason most will never consider a Grand Seiko vs a Rolex, Omega, etc. is because in the minds of people their luxury segment derives from the bottom up. What I mean by that is that Seiko is viewed as a cheap watch for the masses that also happens to make more expensive better watches as well. This effectively takes the all important exclusivity equation off the table. In the car industry, Mercedes, BMW already fortified their brands as makers of luxury vehicles before branching out into the lower price points such as c, cla et. So they are seen as a top down brands, makers of high end products who also happen to offer good affordable cars. In addition, even the cheapest Merecedes or BMW is out of reach of most, while a "cheap" Seiko is not, driving down exclusivity even more.

As a watch connoisseur, one can certainly admire and appreciate the beautiful quality of a GS, but brand exclusivity, history and marketing when married to a certain standard of quality will always win out. BTW, I don't think anyone on this thread argued that the GS was a crappy watch but rather implied that the brand Seiko is a crappy brand. From a purely luxury product segment perspective, I beleive that is true. Personally as a watch lover, I will one day sooner rather than later get a GS for my own collection because as with the Phaeton, it's is a helluva well crafted item.

I agree ...

[madmax21]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Is luxury when it comes to watches a standard of quality? Or is luxury what marketing told you it is and how successful that marketing is at separating you from the greatest amount of your money as possible?

In the end the supposed Seiko stigma you've described is due in large part to a cultural divide, unawareness of history and purpose, and differences in marketing that results in brand-name conditioning.

Grand Seiko's studios have a 55-year history of making watches, and their luxury-level fit and finish standards have never been in question for those who've been aware of them. After their inception back then they quickly began to match and then beat the Swiss in the accuracy department as well (Observatory tests) so the idea that Seiko "has come a long way" as far as making superior product was put to bed before most of us around here were born to learning to tell time.

Which was and is the entire point of Grand Seiko in the first place; to showcase the Company's watchmaking ability and skills in artistry, workmanship, and technology. That's the reason why they didn't brand them as something else as some like yourself who believe there's a stigma to the Seiko (and therefore think it was some kind of marketing mistake on their part). On the contrary, the Grand Seiko studios and their output were, and are, a matter of Company pride. Chalk it up to cultural differences when it comes to marketing something, but they WANT people to know they are part of Seiko, and the people they primarily wanted to know were primarily those they were selling them to. Grand Seiko (or Credor) never existed for the purpose of flooding the world-wide marketplace and selling as many units as they could. That's what the rest of Seiko does. That's what Rolex does.

That's where the stigma borne of unawareness comes in. Until recently (meaning about 5 years ago), almost every one of the 5 - 10,000 Grand Seikos produced yearly up until then were gobbled-up domestically in Japan or in the other few Asian locales they were sold. Outside that limited market most didn't know a thing about them for 50 of the 55 years they've been around existing as a superior, luxury watch.

The others definitely feigning unawareness was the Swiss luxury watch-making industry. By the late 60's stock Grand Seiko's were beating their tweaked Swiss movements offered for accuracy testing left and right. This was the reason behind the Swiss circling the wagons and creating the looser, but (most importantly) Swiss-only COSC standard of accuracy they rely on now.

The Swiss couldn't stand that anyone else could be, as you put it, "bringing something big to the table" and so their response was to essentially create their own private club and tables and continue marketing the hell out of their products using celebrities and movie placement deals.

Grand Seiko is expanding, if you want to call it that. It's yearly output of around 15K mechanical watches is still minuscule compared to the almost a million Rolexes or hundreds of thousands of Omegas, but at least their marketing still focuses on what makes them great; quality, workmanship, and precision. I don't need a fake movie spy (or the memory of a former one) telling me what's luxury or not.

Just go ahead and get one and see for yourself.

I will definitely take you up on it in fact I will be going by this week to a local dealer that sells GS. I know he's low on stock however I will see what he has and pick one up. I will also post pictures to show you it. I will wear the watch for a month after that I will give you an honest review on it. I will be set on comfort quality, fit and finish and with any luxury items how it makes me feel wearing it.
It will be honest and unbiased. I look forward to sending pictures and my review.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I have two Grand Seiko's, (not the model mentioned) I part exchanged my Omega Seamster Pro for one of them.

[SearChart]

Another vote for the Seiko.

[daveathall]

I have quite enjoyed the responses here and I agree and can relate to a lot of them. I absolutely agree that Seiko is not perceived as a luxury brand, but I also agree that a GS is a stunning watch, why wouldn't I, I own two.

Some of those that have commented will, as I did, buy a GS because they are watch lovers and are comfortable in whatever watch they wear, others, I fear will never own a GS because it doesn't show them as they wish others to see them, it possibly doesn't project prosperity or success.

Some may look down on my entry level and very common Rolex for the same reason. Me? I love my SubC date, it is mine and I bought it for me, the same reason I bought my two GS's and two Sinn watches. I don't buy my watches for other people to look at, or to push up my social standing, I buy them for me.

Which do I enjoy wearing the most? I couldn't answer TBH, I love them all. It is nice when I try other watches on in a Jewellers and the assistant knows about watches, their look of surprise and delight when they pick up my GS and know what they are holding, it's absolutely wonderful, the conversation quickly changes from the watch I am trying on to my GS, they are that rare.

Disclaimer;

I honestly never thought I would own a GS, probably for some of the reasons members have given above, perhaps I was a brand snob? Probably, I wouldn't argue against it. That all changed when I saw them.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Another reason I would go with the Omega is that it's easier to flip if you decide to sell.

I certainly agree with Jim on this point.

[daveathall]

To add to my previous post, specifically my disclaimer, I typed the below, here in a thread in 2008 before I had ever seen a Grand Seiko.

Originally Posted by daveathall

If you put two boxes in front of me and said, in one box there is a Rolex and in the other a Seiko both worth £3500, but I couldnt look first, which would I pick? Call me shallow, I would walk away with the Rolex box everytime, boils down to pride of ownership, do I buy the name rather than the watch? Of course I do, no contest.

You will find me at the "Shallow end"

[DCheeta]

This is a great thread, I'm loving the debate and the fact that it's being conducted in the best tradition of TRF - in a civilized, intelligent manner.

Michael, you make your point very clearly and I agree with everything you've said. I also dig your open-mindedness and your admission that, although you find Seiko to be a crappy brand, you will some day own one because it is a quality product.

I find myself aligned with Dave, and I seem to be at the same point in my watch journey. In years past, I would have scoffed at the idea of buying a Seiko for any more than a few hundred dollars. But after researching the quality and history of GS, and most importantly putting one on my wrist, I have come to love the watches regardless of the brand. After about 20 years of watch collecting, I have come to appreciate the feeling I get personally from wearing a watch more than the name on the dial. After all, I wear watches solely for my own enjoyment, and nobody cares what's on my wrist anyway.

Mr. MadMax, I really look forward to your review and hearing what you think about GS after wearing one for a while. Kudos to you for your open mind!

And of course, to keep this thread beautiful...

[MichaelFlash]

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by madmax21

I will definitely take you up on it in fact I will be going by this week to a local dealer that sells GS. I know he's low on stock however I will see what he has and pick one up. I will also post pictures to show you it. I will wear the watch for a month after that I will give you an honest review on it. I will be set on comfort quality, fit and finish and with any luxury items how it makes me feel wearing it.
It will be honest and unbiased. I look forward to sending pictures and my review.

That's just awesome. It's incredibly refreshing to run across such an open mind willing to give it a try. Looking forward hearing your thoughts and impression, and I know others are as well. Nobody can ask for more than allowing the watch to sell itself for what it is in your hands and on your wrist.

And in that regard I'll say something that I've said before re the GS that others and myself advise NOT to do with their new Rolexes and Omegas (if one wants to avoid disappointment); if you're a loupe-looker, with a GS don't put it away, go ahead and look and scrutinize to your heart's content. It'll only increase your enjoyment and not disappoint.

[MILGAUSS88]

Hell, I collect Omega and I am a huge fan, and even I would chose the GS.

[daveathall]

In fairness, I have seen the Omega in question, it is stunning. I wouldn't be at all disappointed with either watch at all.

[Wesley Crusher]

I've never handled a GS, but I am a big fan. The quality of the dial and movement finishing is really a step (or two) above the price point. I've heard that the older 3 piece bracelets are not that great, but the newer, 5 piece bracelets are much nicer. Can anybody comment?

If I had to make a complaint, I suppose it would be how thick some of the GS watches are.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

I've never handled a GS, but I am a big fan. The quality of the dial and movement finishing is really a step (or two) above the price point. I've heard that the older 3 piece bracelets are not that great, but the newer, 5 piece bracelets are much nicer. Can anybody comment?

If I had to make a complaint, I suppose it would be how thick some of the GS watches are.

I must admit that I have not thought of my GS as thick, the lugs do slope quite a bit giving it a more fitted feel, the photo shows it with my sub, (heart in mouth moment photographing them just now over the stone floor in the kitchen, lol) I think where the thickness comes from is the back plate which is quite thick (domed perhaps?). I don't know how many pieces my bracelet has Wes, it's good enough, the glidelock on my sub is better.

I do think that the GS would look better without the lug holes. (I can hear the gasps of disgust from here).


Excuse the finger marks please.

[Wesley Crusher]

Hi Dave,

The GS is not a thick watch compared to something like a ROO, but it's definitely about the same as a Sub. That's what I find interesting. The GS cannot be more than 100m WR, so what gives? Like you said, I think a lot of it has to do with the caseback.

And your bracelet is the 5 piece bracelet.

Here's an example of the 3 piece bracelet:

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

Hi Dave,

The GS is not a thick watch compared to something like a ROO, but it's definitely about the same as a Sub. That's what I find interesting. The GS cannot be more than 100m WR, so what gives? Like you said, I think a lot of it has to do with the caseback.

And your bracelet is the 5 piece bracelet.

Here's an example of the 3 piece bracelet:

Ahh, thanks Wes, the bracelet on my other GS (Quartz) is 3 piece, it doesn't feel any difference quality wise, it just doesn't look as nice though.

[jshepard]

I'm with the minority here going with the Omega. I have not seen a GS in person, but I have heard great things from it. However, I'm not rich enough to pick up a watch at that price point and not care about the name of the dial. Despite the superior quality many profess about the GS, both I'm sure are reliable and well built enough to last for a lifetime granted the watch is being taken cared of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Psmith]

Both nice pieces, but the GS is more special imho.

[inzite]

gs for sure!:)

here's mine!

home bound by Ricky Cheong Photography, on Flickr

[dualcarb]

Here is another shot of the SBGR 083. Love it. But because it is so highly polished and such a work of art, I tend to baby the watch a little more than I should.

[southcarolina1801]

Originally Posted by madmax21

There's no question in my mind that Grand Seiko is an exceptionally well made watch that deserves a ton of credit. However as I've stated before I personally would not buy one and the reason is because of its association with Seiko department store quality watches.

Please allow me to explain. I believe that A quality watch is one thing but when I wear a watch the brand means a lot to me as well. I think of the history behind the watch. I feel the name brings something big to the table think of a Maserati then compare it to say Hyundai although the brand has come a long long way even making presidential limousines fit for presidents. unfortunately the brand comes with a stigma and when I wear a watch the name and history of it makes me feel different wearing it. I hope you understood what I'm trying to say as I never want to offend anyone forever wearing a Grand Seiko I feel they a
Make a super great watch and if it makes you feel good wearing it by all means wear it with pride and always in good health. Best Regards to all

I have to agree with this ^^^. I love Seiko's and have owned plenty but at the end of the day would I pay $5-10k for a Seiko that wears the same badge as a $100 model at Macy's... absolutely not. No need to lecture on the quality of a GS, I totally get it but at the end of the day brand cachet is important to me and Rolex, Omega, AP, Patek, etc all have it.

[Marrk]

Grand Seiko.

I always wanted one of their recreations/reissues of the classic from the '60s, the first Grand Seiko. The Omega is fine, but Grand Seiko is so much more.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by southcarolina1801

...No need to lecture on the quality of a GS, I totally get it but at the end of the day brand cachet is important to me and Rolex, Omega, AP, Patek, etc all have it.

Why is brand cachet important?
Who exactly are you trying to impress with your purchases?
Why wouldn’t Grand Seiko be acceptable, especially as those you’re trying to impress will be there in person, and can see for themselves what differentiates a GS from a cheap mass produced version?

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by madmax21

There's no question in my mind that Grand Seiko is an exceptionally well made watch that deserves a ton of credit. However as I've stated before I personally would not buy one and the reason is because of its association with Seiko department store quality watches.

Please allow me to explain. I believe that A quality watch is one thing but when I wear a watch the brand means a lot to me as well. I think of the history behind the watch. I feel the name brings something big to the table think of a Maserati then compare it to say Hyundai although the brand has come a long long way even making presidential limousines fit for presidents. unfortunately the brand comes with a stigma and when I wear a watch the name and history of it makes me feel different wearing it. I hope you understood what I'm trying to say as I never want to offend anyone forever wearing a Grand Seiko I feel they a
Make a super great watch and if it makes you feel good wearing it by all means wear it with pride and always in good health. Best Regards to all

@BrummyJames & madmax21:

If you are trying to impress yourself, get the GS. If you are trying to impress others, get the Omega because you are correct that most people will associate the Seiko brand with inexpensive quartz watches. Indeed, those same people might not know what an Omega is, but if you can work in the words Skyfall and Daniel Craig at a cocktail party, you might have a chance.

Note: I've been wearing Rolex for 46 years, and I never got the "impress others" thing. I must be an idiot.