Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaking.

[Tony_M]

It's my sentence.

- Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaking.

Would it be idiomatic to use "in terms of" in this sentence?

 

[tedmc]

I think the sentence reads better without the phrase.

 

[Annabel Lee]

It's my sentence.

- Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaking.

Would it be idiomatic to use "in terms of" in this sentence?

It would be OK if "watchmaking" were changed to "watchmaker" of "who makes/made the watch":

the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaker
the most expensive brand in terms of who makes/made the watch

However, I'd prefer to use different phrasing:

the most expensive watch brand
the most expensive brand of watch

 

[teechar]

I think the sentence reads better without the phrase.

If you mean ...

Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand watchmaking.

... then, no. That would be wrong.

 

[Tony_M]

It would be OK if "watchmaking" were changed to "watchmaker" of "who makes/made the watch":

the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaker
the most expensive brand in terms of who makes/made the watch

However, I'd prefer to use different phrasing:

the most expensive watch brand
the most expensive brand of watch

What about this one?

- Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watch production.

The labor, QA, R&D, and marketing are very expensive. In fact, almost all or all company's costs are higher than those of other watchmakers.

 

[Annabel Lee]

What about this one?

- Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watch production.

The labor, QA, R&D, and marketing are very expensive. In fact, almost all or all company's costs are higher than those of other watchmakers.

I'd say that works very nicely.

 

[Tony_M]

I'd say that works very nicely.

Thank you, @Annabel Lee.

I have one other question now. Could you please explain/rephrase your sentence? As I understand it, it was:

- Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaker.

Patek Philippe is a company that manufactures high-end watches. It's a watchmaker. So, how does it work? -> Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of Patek Philippe?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Could you please explain/rephrase your sentence? As I understand it, it was:

- Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaker.

Patek Philippe is a company that manufactures high-end watches. It's a watchmaker. So, how does it work? -> Patek Philippe is probably the most expensive brand in terms of Patek Philippe?

We use the phrase "in terms of [X]" in certain types of context. You provided no context, so I imagined that you might have a context in mind in which you wished to clarify for the listener or reader what Patek Philippe is or the sense in which you are claiming that it is the most expensive brand. Suppose you are at a venue where Patek Philippe watches are being sold and Ferrari cars are also being sold. If the question were asked "Which brand here is the most expensive brand?," you probably wouldn't wish to imply that Patek Philippe was a more expensive brand than Ferrari. Hence you might use "in terms of watchmaker" to make the assertion clearer in the context of utterance. If we're talking about watchmaker brands, Patek Philippe is the most expensive brand here. In terms of watchmaker, Patek Philippe is the most expensive brand here.

Another type of context in which you might want to add "in terms of watchmaker," or something to that effect, is one in which the complete product involves different brands. I don't know whether Patek Philippe makes its own wristbands, for example, in addition to watches proper, but it's conceivable that the wristband maker may be different from the watchmaker. You might wish to say that Patek Philippe is the most expensive brand in terms of watchmaker, so as to exclude wristwatches which may be more expensive merely because of the type of wristband on which the watch is mounted. Think of a Sony watch mounted on diamond-studded wristband. Such a wristwatch might, as a combination, be more expensive than a Patek Philippe, even though Sony watches are normally much less expensive than Patek Philippe watches.

 

[Tony_M]

If we're talking about watchmaker brands, Patek Philippe is the most expensive brand here. In terms of watchmaker, Patek Philippe is the most expensive brand here.

That's interesting. You said that "watchmaking" should be replaced with "watchmaker," but in you example, I don't see much difference between the two. You can talk with someone about "watch brands," "watchmakers," or "watchmaking brands," but "watchmaker brands" sounds odd.

 

[Annabel Lee]

That's interesting. You said that "watchmaking" should be replaced with "watchmaker," but in you example, I don't see much difference between the two. You can talk with someone about "watch brands," "watchmakers," or "watchmaking brands," but "watchmaker brands" sounds odd.

Are you trying to nitpick? Did you grasp my explanation regarding "in terms of" -- the topic of discussion?

Go ahead and change "watchmaker brands" to "watchmakers." I would most naturally use "watch brands."

I can't imagine any native speaker ever using "watchmaking brands" or "in terms of watchmaking" in reference to brands.

 

[Tony_M]

Did you grasp my explanation regarding "in terms of" -- the topic of discussion?

Not really.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Not really.

Well, I wish you all the best with your efforts to learn English.