or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mafoofan

Not sure how the cleverness of Patek's marketing campaign indicts the watches. Seems to me if people had real knowledge of declining quality or other issues, they'd be able to speak to specifics. There have to be more than three or four people in this thread who actually know about watches . . .
I didn't buy the Panerai for value appreciation. I wanted an archetypical model, and the 372 is almost dead-on for the original 6152. Also, as it was about to be discontinued, it was my last chance to buy one new.Both that watch and the Tank are gone. Both great watches--the Tank in particular. Set my sights on another target. We'll see if it works out.
You made a silly claim that Patek finishing is worse than it used to be. You made an even sillier accusation that Patek finishing is "second or third tier." These statements are not supported by general knowledge of the watch industry and movement finishing, Patek's history, or specific examples. I provided you all of the above to demonstrate that your claims are false.Cocksack accuses Rolex of using cheap parts in their movements, without bothering to understand why...
I've not shied away from backing my thoughts with knowledge, information, and examples. That they may not be opinions that float with TWAT groupthink does not make me a troll.Maybe you should be directing your criticism at the many others who populate this thread with unsupported, specious claims.
When you claim that Rolex movements contain cheap plasticky parts and that their main competitors are Tissot and Fossil, you undermine what could be thoughtful, useful conversation with misinformed, trollish bullshit. Calling you out on it is not an ad hominem. It's cutting to the chase.Blind, unsupported statements like "Patek finishing isn't what it used to be" are similarly pointless and distracting to productive conversation, and go to the heart of what is wrong with...
Legendary 1953-1960 Patek Caliber 12-600AT (company's first automatic movement, time only, no complications): 2004 Patek Caliber 315 (contemporary workhorse central rotor automatic movement, time only, no complications): Current Patek Caliber 324 (successor to the 315; same functions and virtually identical except for silicon balance spring, ceramic ball bearings for the rotor and faster beat)
Dude--because every high-end maker's watches are better finished then they were 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago. Finishing quality is a function of precision. Precision is a function of available tools. Tools today are better. Technology, automation, computers, CNC machines, etc. On top of that, it is only since the 90's that people even started looking at their own watch movements. You're asking me to prove to you that cars are more or efficient than they were 50 years ago or...
Why don't you research your own watch first. Spend three minutes on Google. Would do you a world of good. Journe's "weak spot" has always been finishing. He is philosophically opposed to obsessive finishing and would rather focus his energy and resources on movement innovation. You buy a Journe for the eccentric character, for the beautiful design, for the beatiful movement, for the innovative design, etc.--and in spite of the good, but not particularly great,...
It's just laughable that someone who spent $25-30K on what is certainly a beautiful and enviable watch (one of my personal favorites, nonetheless) is so obviously unaware of it's pluses/minuses and fundamental ethos. What do you really even know about FP Journe? Journe himself openly admits in interviews that he cannot execute to Patek levels of finish and is not interested in doing so. Then you call Patek finishing second or third tier. Utterly ridiculous.
If you consider the below second or third tier finishing, I don't know how you examine your FP Journe without vomiting. This is uninformed commentary at it's worst.
New Posts  All Forums: