I've been discussing this with some friends because I always hear them use the term "Entry Level" this or that (including VC, PP, AP, Lange, etc.). I don't like using that term because I think it implicitly puts a hierarchy to watches within a brand, and if I extend the logic to multiple brands...puts a ranking on them. I guess I just hate rankings and (top 3, top 5, etc.), because they almost always end up being subjective evaluations.
I totally understand and appreciate the difficulty involved in designing and producing watches with complications, and grand complications. (In fact, my favorite complication is chiming/striking, besides the challenges in making a repeater, they look very simple from the outside.)
Personally, I like simple watches. But I don't necessarily consider them "entry level". To me putting a label of "entry level" on a watch implies that I am at a starting point and wish to move up the scale over time, which is not necessarily true. Also, I believe most people use the term "Entry Level" as a euphemism for "lowest cost".
My friends say they understand this, but don't know how else to simply differentiate watches within a Brand's product lines.
I usually just describe watches as simple vs. complicated, and simple does not mean entry. Take a look at this beautiful cal. 1120 which is most often seen in simple watches with only two hands. Would you consider this an entry level watch?
Some will say the OS Automatic is an entry level VC. But for those that want a great daily watch that offers a metal bracelet, the ability to go swimming, and don't need a chronograph or dual-time function...do you say they are buying an entry level? They are buying something that fits their lifestyle requirements, nothing more/nothing less.
For a Brand like VC, I don't like the term "entry level". It' like saying, "That's an entry level McLaren or Lamborghini, etc."
What do you think? Do you use the term "entry level VC"? If so, how do you define it? If you don't use this term, do you have other terms?