Man, How Things Change and the Stones
I just got off the Fossil website. It is easy to see why they are struggling to survive. I don’t understand how a company known for it’s crazy cool watches over the last 40-plus years can be selling stuff like this present offering. Who buys these watches I see on their site? Who is making these product decisions at Fossil? I guess now, since they are in recovery mode, they are probably regrouping and not forging ahead with new ideas?
How can I attempt to cover everything Fossil in one post? I can’t. There isn’t enough time or space to do it justice and I don’t know enough to do so. What I can do is say I miss the old Fossil and try to rediscover a few old models that ring true for me. I have avoided, so far, going down the Fossil rabbit hole in my personal watch journey. But a random find at an antique/junk store got me started.
I’m getting old, so, I did experience the original ’80s and ’90s Fossil. At the time I did not realize the scope of Fossil offerings, only what I occasionally saw at a department store. Also, my tastes have changed considerably so things I never would have given a second thought then, I now like. I’m now very much more into watches of all types, and am a collector, so follow current watch trends in general. I tend like older watches, mostly for cost reasons. I have become intrigued at looking back to see what was going on in the ’80s and ’90s before retail collapsed. When I look at the current Fossil site I’m trying to figure out what it is they are doing? Their watches are just soulless. They look like some kind of generic renditions of general watch types from history without actually looking like anything distinctive or original. Instead of being original, their offering seems like large, loud stereotypes of watches.
The other thing I see is this nebulous mall watch esthetic that makes every watch look dressy and sporty at the same time? It is a low end department store look, if you know what I mean? Now, I don’t want to come across a snobbish because I am a champion of the cheap watch. I just like a watch to look purposeful and appropriate for whatever it is supposed to be for, no matter the price. I want to see some genuine concept that clicks. Some kind of attitude or statement, a story or at least a theme.
Other brands do similar things; Bulova and Citizen come to mind. Especially Bulova. Some of their lower end stuff is just weird? Shiny things. Watches that look like something they are not. Maybe its trying to make something cheap look more expensive? I have written about MVMT and Nixon, too, and get similar vibes but is a different kind of emptiness. I really don’t get why minimalist MVMT was popular? A generational change I’m not attuned to. They are getting better for me, since Movado took over, as in designs that make sense for my frames of reference. Nixon also drives me crazy in a Fossil kind of way; love the old stuff but don’t get the new stuff? That said, there are several new Nixons I do like.
Fashion Watch
Fashion Watch is a term that is hard to define. PreFossil, at say, 1985, there was no such thing, really, as a fashion watch. Fossil watches came to be classified as fashion watches, mostly, but I’m not sure that Fashion is adequate as a category for them? Yes, cheap quartz watches allowed brands to produce seasonal fashion watches like clothing accessories, but quartz watches almost became products totally removed from mechanical watches except that you could also tell time with them.
When released from the need to house mechanical movements, designers could just make any little art piece and stick a quartz module behind it. Telling time was not the primary purpose of the watch anymore. The movement almost became an after thought, hence the cheapest quartz movements you could get. Wrist, or pocket or lanyard watches just became a style statement that could tell time if you wanted almost maintenance-free. But you did have to change those pesky batteries now and then. The cost of a watch became a lot lower. There is a generation of people out there who never conceived of a watch that did not have a battery.
What I’m getting at is that Fossil watches, like Swatch watches, were not about watches or specs, time technology or even materials as much. They were about being a way to express personal style. I guess you could say the same about a Patek, or any watch, really; that they are expressions of style, too. Fossil did not have the old world watch tradition baggage to carry along. It was about consumerism, personal style, branding, and cheap off-shore manufacturing.
While doing some research on Fossil I ran across a business book, ValueSpace, from 2001, in which the authors, Banwarhi Mittal and Jagdish Sheth, researched how some successful companies were creating value for their customers. One of the companies profiled was Fossil. In it they mentioned that Fossil, started in 1986, considered itself not a watch company, but a design, marketing and distribution company that was primarily doing watches at the time. This makes sense as I see their watches not as technical products but as design/marketing collaborations with their customers.
Why so Serious?
As the watch community gets more serious it seems there are fewer ways to just have fun with a watch. Every watch has to be the Topper, the GADA, a great value, the heirloom. Maybe that’s why the recent Swatch collaborations have been so popular? I’m not saying we are not in an environmental fix, that we don’t need to recycle way more, or that we need more Fast Fashion or blind consumerism. Those days are gone, but I do think we need find ways to keep the cheap fashion watch alive. Maybe that’s another post. Another point to make is the fewer watches we have the more we expect from each watch. If you have one or two watches, you want it or them to be able to do a lot–handle many situations. Every spec counts. With a casual fashion watch you don’t expect everything. Just one or two attributes to make you smile. Instead of getting one watch to wear with everything; work, party, recreation, you get multiple watches for different moods, colors, situations, each with limited scope. So what if it is only 30m WR, it has cool numbers! So what if there is no lume, the dial is a great color!
Marble Stoned
On a whim, my wife and I hit a local antique/junk store. My late mother-in-law used to call it junkin’. Not quite antiquein’ because you were not searching for high end antiques or collectables, but bargains. There was a container with a bunch of junk cheap, quartz watches in various stages of disrepair. There it was. A “stone” Fossil. It was in bad shape. At this point I knew little about them or any Fossil really, because I had not yet taken the plunge into rediscovering Fossil as a brand.
I paid $10 for it and took it home to start cleaning. It measures 36mm x42mm. It carries the model number BW-6705 on the back. It also has an additional serial/model number, which I have not seen on a Fossil. I think this is a retailer designation? I have seen the same watch, (I thought) with the number BW-6730, too? Another version, 6743, had antique gold plating. If you know these mid-nineties real stone on copper plated case watches, you know the case bottoms can look like hell over the years as the plating comes off and corrosion sets in. The 18mm leather strap on it was shot, too. It was not the original Fossil strap, so I didn’t want to spend energy to revive it. These light weight woven straps are not very robust, so I can see why they are missing from older preowned examples–they just wore out.
This was one of the filthiest watches I have cleaned in a while, and I have cleaned countless old watches. I foolishly thought I would be able to restore the copper back until I realized there was little copper left! Life with a cheap plated watch. Almost every preowned example I have seen online looks the same; bad. On the other hand, the real marble (or mineral stone) dial/bezel looks great. It ran fine with a new battery, but the alignment of the hands was off just enough to be annoying. The hands are a bit short for the dial diameter I think–they should extend closer to the roman numerals. But because there are no min/sec hash marks, the over all design is not intended to deliver exact time. Its about Roman numerals on stone. The surface is nice to touch, the pattern in the marble interesting. The thin straight lugs are about as wide as the thin strip of copper surrounding the stone.
I’m not sure why these stone models captured my fancy, but they did? I think it is the use of materials and finishes that are not brushed stainless with starburst dials. I like coppers, bronzes, brass. This watch style is not my normal pursuit. I’m not even a Roman numeral fan, usually. They are distinctly unisex in style and size and I suspect they were mostly worn by women. There are smaller ones that classified as “women’s” because of their even smaller size. I have many vintage watches so small sizes are normal for me. Early on Fossil released several retro designs in smaller sizes before they started getting bigger. The 6705/6730 wears bigger than 36mm because almost the full diameter is taken up by the stone. There is barely a bezel or you could say the stone is the bezel in a thin frame. You could also says the bezel is part of the dial? Size is one of the issues I have with current Fossil selections; most of their men’s styles are bigger than I like and they have become pretty boring in comparison to the ’90s Fossils.
Since finding this first one 6705 I have acquired a second one in much better condition. It still has most of the copper plating on the back. It however, has the model number BW6730 and is on a glossy black braided original strap. It is probably a later release than the above 6705. This style was popular and used for promotional purposes by various brands.
Lots of Stones
This 36mm style, BW6705, seems to have been popular and was done with some different case finishes as well as smaller women’s sizes. It may be the most overtly “stone” design because of the wide bezel deck, but there were many different stone designs. They are fetching high prices among collectors as I have discovered in my research.
I have not found much in the way of detailed information on the the stone materials used throughout this multitude of designs. I have read that marble and other natural stones of various kinds jasper, malachite, granite, agate or quartz variations were used and probably some types of simulated stone? I just don’t know specifically for each model.
The BW6765 was another stone heavy looking style. By the slight change of adding min/sec marks, it becomes a more traditional watch dial. The big stone bezel with Roman numerals is still there, but the numbers are scaled down. The lugs are more prominent which makes the overall design more subtle and balances the case and stone weight by adding more emphasis to the rest of the watch. There don’t seem to be as many examples of this model available as compared to other contemporary styles. The dial is maybe a bit plain, bit the overall visual balance of dial/bezel/case feels good, and the color and texture of the stone is nice. The crystal is circle by a band of copper which is a nice touch.
The 6765 I decided to rescue was not on the original strap and had a dead Miyota 2036 movement that needed replacing, I think. I had it serviced and running again. I decided to bring it back to life because the case/lugs finish was fairly decent. It would have been cheaper to keep looking for a working one in better condition, but I like bringing watches back from the edge. Originally it came on a brown or black braided leather strap, I think. It is now on a replacement strap. I will probably find another brown strap in leather or fabric. It only measures 34.5mm wide, but because of its vintage feel it seems OK. I have gotten used to wearing watches of this size, but I can see how this falls into “women’s ” territory for many.
The BW6765 measures 34.5mm x 43mm and only 8mm thick. The brass case is plated with aged copper finish that on my example was tarnished or wearing off in spots. It would be nice to find another example with better plating, but this variegated look has a nice vintage feel that is OK. Also, the copper polishes up easily. So far I haven’t been able to find one in better shape. You can see the image of the 6746 below with like-new finish that I imagine this one had at one time. Even though the markings are filled or printed in black, I like the stone color and copper color on brown straps rather than the black.
Another route Fossil took with the stones was to mix stone dials with more traditional plated cases. The dials were stone, but the case and bezel were metal and there were applied markers on top of the stone. The BW6566 is a perfect example and is just nuts! It has lots of things I like: an antique brass finish for the case, stone dial, braided leather strap with brass hardware, and a faceted “prism” crystal. The case and bezel are distinctly vintage-styled with fluted sections around the bezel, there are short curvy spider lugs and crown guards that give surface details and aid the vintage feel. This bezel/case design was used or several Fossil models.
The crystal is unusual. From straight on, you cant see that it has 12 facets and rises to a point in the center. As you rotate your arm the light spins around reflecting off the facets, but for the most part doesn’t impede reading the time. This type of crystal was used on many Fossil designs like the PC7371 with a turquoise dial described later.
The BW6566 I own seems to be pretty much in like new condition with original strap. No scratches or marred plating. Again there is the 18mm woven leather strap. This on is not a glossy black, but a soft flat black texture. The Fossil woven straps are not the best looking or of the best quality, but are interesting for showing styles of the 90s. They do not taper. I usually don’t pick black for a strap color if I have a choice. I prefer brown with these gold/copper/brass watches but am up for experimenting. My general thought on the black braided strap is they just don’t look as good as the watches, so detract from the overall appeal.
Because I do like lots of the stone Fossils, it does not mean I like them all. Clearly there was a fashion moment for stone in the 90s, kind of like the turquoise and silver watch bracelets in the 70s-80s. Fossil went over-the-top with stone watches that included all sorts of sculpted facades of cities, moonscape, sea life, etc. I’m not going to show them here; you’ll have to look them up.
Like today on higher end watches, various exotic stone dials are quite popular. I’m not really interested. With the cheap ’90s Fossils, I am more so. Its OK– like costume jewelry I guess.
Another stone dial within a metal case/bezel design in the BW-6740. This 90s one is great because of the mixed materials, and frankly, would fit right in with 2026 interest in stone dial watches. It is more of a classic vintage watch look with long tapering lugs, and a small seconds dial. But then, bam! A stone dial, even for the small seconds. All on an aged silver case. There is a copper bezel ring between the case and the stone. The small signed crown is copper plated. There are the Roman numerals again. Better though, is the brown strap.
The BW6740 is 34.5mm wide and 43mm long. The lug width is 18mm, which is great, and I like the original brown leather strap with copper buckle. This is good cheap watch making, to me. An overall elegant design that doesn’t feel as cheap as it is. The leaf hands are delicate, the small seconds dial is small but quite legible. Maybe the painting of the black in the Roman numerals could have been more crisp. It makes me wonder how this would be done today, by Timex or Fossil again and how much it would cost. Would the movement be different? The movement is a Miyota GL45 that uses a 364 battery. The way the plating is done–not cheap chrome–gives the watches a vintage quality. The finishes will tarnish and can be polished to the owners liking so it give s nuanced aged feel over time.
Lets look at the BW-6746, which is a weird combination of the 6705 marble and the metal case of the 6566. Fossil used the fluted textured bezel sections of the metal case and rendered then in the stone. Its more like going back to the stone sitting on a pan or half case. It keeps the spider lugs and crown guards of the 6566. Additionally they have thrown in a copper Fossil plate on the dial at 6 o’clock, which adds a bit more detail to go with the lugs. Another change is the Roman numerals are under glass now instead of outboard like other styles.
I really like the feel of this watch. I get the vintage vibe, the stone and the copper, details that just makes for an interesting, different watch. Again the braided black strap. I have mixed feelings about these braided straps. I like the idea of original straps, but they are not great. They almost detract from the watch unlike many Timex releases where the straps integrate and create a bigger impact. I also show a promotional version for JP Morgan that came on a more traditional brown leather strap padded with side stitching. Its going to be fun, with all these stones, trying to find straps that will fit the feeling but enhance the experience of wearing them. I’m leaning towards canvas or other fabric, or aged leather? Finding copper buckles will be hard if I don’t have original Fossil ones. Probably rose gold color plated is the way to go.
The dial layout of the 6746 adds a little more interest by dropping in the five-minute interval track underneath smaller Roman numerals. From the side the watch looks like a stone disc on a copper disc, each with rounded sides. Fossil could have settled on a couple of stone designs, but kept churning out lots of ideas. This is not something you see today very often. The economics of producing fashion watches–or any watches was different thirty years ago. Even Timex can’t really offer multiple versions of designs as they did just 8-10 years ago.
OK, this one is just crazy, again. Fossil took a popular ’90s look, the dressy diver, and stoned it to come up with the BW6767. But look, no Roman numerals! I could not pass this up. What a mix; diver bezel and dial look in stone on silver on braided leather again! The bezel edge is antique brass finish, the case an aged silver. The signed crown is brass. Not a diver with 30m WR, but how would rubber strap look? Maybe a NATO strap? Fossil fun. When you hold it in your hands, noticing the quality of build, you know its not a proper diver, but its easy to imagine that a well-built, 200m diver with stone dial and stone bezel insert might be pretty cool?
It measures 39mmx42mm. Again, an 18mm lug gap. The case finish is something I have seen before from this time period in several Fossil and other branded watches made by Fossil. It darkens or tarnishes like nickel or silver but I’m not sure what it is? The unidirectional bezel is brass with a stone insert. It has count up scale and dots for the first 15min. The crystal is domed slightly and seems to be mineral glass. The dial is plain with just round diver-style hour markers with a black outline, no numbers. The markers seem to be milled or applied but look to be of the same material as the dial. In the image above the markers look to be painted with lume, but the one I own only has lume on the hands. It’s markers have stone look like the dial.
Now for a little change-up; the PC-7371 with a blue turquoise dial and gold plating. This one take on a more dressy look and has a faceted crystal like the BW6566. The PC-7371 measures 34mmx43mm with the standard 18mm lug gap.The case is distinctively different from others I am highlighting here in that it has more rounded case sides. The finish on case, crown, hands and Roman numerals is shiny gold. The dauphine-style hands are slim. There is a minute/second track around the perimeter, but the marks in gold are so fine they can be missed depending on how the light is playing of the 12-faceted crystal. I consider this watch a more clearly dress watch look – probably because of the shiny gold finish and bright dial on black strap.
This one in particular begs the masculine/feminine/unisex discussion. In the ’90s, generally, there was a clearer line between men’s and women’s watches. Today watch makers mostly avoid assigning any particular sizes, at least, to any sex. I’m not sure how Fossil was target marketing these in the ’90s? We each have our sliding scale of what is masculine and what is feminine. One could say, considering size, materials, design, all of these discussed fall into the unisex range. This one, to me, is maybe more feminine than the BW6566, but only just, and it is probably because of the faceted crystal in combination with stone color and gold. Then today, this color is popular in lots of men’s sports and diving watches. Its personal and we each have our reasons for liking any particular watch.
Its worth discussing the faceted crystal some more. It adds a whole new dynamic to a watch because it creates a constantly changing view of the dial, hands and markers. You never know what you are going to get! Some would say it impedes reading the time and I will not disagree. The BW6566 with same crystal is easier to read because of its applied markers. What it gives you is an interesting, fun, ever changing display of light effects. The flat Gold Roman numerals are hard to see often on the turquoise dial, especially in low light. They need direct light to reflect. You might say this is a daytime watch. At certain angles this watch looks like one big gemstone.
More Still
There are many other “stone” Fossil designs, but there are three more I wanted to point out that are appealing but seem to be going for more than I want to pay in most cases. Fossil watches and tin boxes are popular for collectors. Also condition is a big factor in pricing, not surprising to you I’m sure. There are some pretty crazy prices being asked by some scalpers for these models particularly if they are in original tin box and in good condition. Some were not produced in as many numbers as, say, the 6705 style.
The BW-6802 is similar to some of the above but has a very distinctive double-wedge hour markers and a big brass bezel. It uses a familiar case construction like the BW6740 and seems to show some lume dots on the hour markers and hands as did the 6767 “diver”. The rendering of the markers/numbers has a more primitive feel. It also has the day/date complication.
The BW-6782 is yet another variety that seems similar the the 6705 above with its big wide stone bezel deck and similar copper plated case. It is even more minimalist with only two Roman numerals and big bold copper bars in the stone for hour markers. It is a little too minimalist for me without the details of some of the others, but the use of the copper through the stone is nice. I have only seen it on a wider braid, braided brown strap.
The last model I want to highlight in the stone watches is the BW-6803. It is a watch that is harder to come by than many of the above. It might have been produced in fewer numbers and sold at a higher price that these others. It could be the stone material and unique shape made it more costly to produce.
The BW6803 is pretty dramatic with pillow-shaped green or blue stone, Roman numeral, again, on a bezel/deck outside the crystal. I guess a spade or dagger shaped hand set with a squiggly line second sweep. The construction is similar to some of the other round 6765 and 6782 that have a metal border on the crystal. The railroad track with five-minute intervals in Arabic numbers is a step down from the bezel or a step up from the dial. All the steps are of the stone material.
Final Thoughts
Fossil collectors are numerous and can be aggressive hunters. All brands experience waves of popularity and disinterest. Judging by some of the prices being asked for older Fossil models, there is some current interest. Of course there are always the scalpers and flippers asking big numbers, but you can still find some bargains in various places. I always say things just pop up when you are not really looking.
Fossil used many manufacturers and movements over the years, so quality can vary. As I mentioned many of the straps don’t survive and are irreplaceable because of their unique designs. Generally Fossil watches in the 90s were inexpensive and intended as fast fashion, not as heirlooms. Condition is everything at the low end because you can’t replace/repair most components unless you get donor watches. However, I can also say that for the price Fossil was asking, the quality was pretty good in most cases.
I’d like to see Fossil bounce back. I think they are taking the wrong tack with their current offerings. Obviously what they have been doing the past ten years is not working. They seem to be more watch focused and following trends instead of leading with design as they did in the golden years. Things have changed in consumer tastes. The watch enthusiast demands more from everyday watches. Smart watches replace many analog products. Inflation has made even fashion entry level watches much more costly. A company can’t release near the number of styles they once did. The world’s trade/transportation/tariff situation has created a whole new business environment.
I think Fossil should go back to what made them unique thirty or forty years ago. They can’t make watches that are too “cheap” because people expect more and costs have risen, but they need to stand out. They need to get away from the conservative, serious, copy-cat watches and get fun again. Smart watches are not fun and didn’t work out for Fossil. Generic sport watches are not fun and the competition is fierce.
Maybe the recent common practice of looking back through the archives to reissue better versions of old favorites is a way to go? The ’90s are making a comeback now. Chinese manufacturing is still there and better than ever and still cheaper than trying to produce in the US. I would like to see manufacturing return here but it will take a generation to get back the supply and manufacturing networks as well as trained workforce up to speed. Maybe Fossil could use Vaer as an example of how to do both. Get back to design and brand collaboration and marketing unique concepts instead of me too stuff.
Leave a Reply