Regarding the composition of metal in watches, some companies make this information freely available, whilst others do not; but nonetheless the information is accessible to people in the industry, like I previously stated: "Since I worked (oh, boy how do I explain this concept?) for several years in the watch industry (retail / repair segments) I have a good idea of which I speak" (your refusal to avoid this would lead me to believe that you indeed do not understand the concept of work).]
And as you worked (not as a watchmaker obviously) in this area, you know all better than everybody Â ? You are a specialist in steel, clockwork...? So then, explain me in what way the steel of B&M is better than the one of Cartier. After, explain me what is the link between the quality of the steel Â and the maneliness of the watch.
As well you did in fact compare watches "Otherwise, in the same logic, many brands are not manely = Cartier, Dior, Vuitton, Hermes...as their first clients are women and sneakers are very manly as the first models were for men."
Where do you see the word "watch" ? I never said watch. The point was just that many companies didn't start their activity in their current area. Cartier's = jewelry Dior = Women's Clothes Does it imply that all their life, Cartier and Dior can make only stuffs for women?
Ernest, anyone who likes watches falls into that category, the fact is that horologists know the importance of the place of Cartier in horological history and its continuing contributions. ]
And as you are not an horologist... What is it place comparing to Patek, Vacheron, AP or JL ?
I just mentioned that it was originally designed for women ]
I am still looking forward you to showing me an issue about that...
and based on that TO ME (again, I clearly stated this was my opinion) it was not as "˜manly' as other watches. ]
I understand, we all talk about our opinion, this seems obvious. The point is don't agree with you on the maneliness of B&M. I gave you my arguments. But you din't give me any arguments and didn't reply to mines. So this is not a dialogue.
Plus, it really does not look like a man's watch...regardless as to how or when or who they designed it for.]
When? How? I don't understand. Reply to my question = WHAT IS A MANELY WATCH?
A sapphire back is merely there to show off the movement, it is not indicative of quality, after all many of the expensive wristwatches / pocket watches on earth do not have ability to view the movement view a sapphire back. ]
Who told you it was indicative of quality? I have never seen a quartz watch with a saphir back, have you ever? Great many modern upscale watches have a saphir back. As you like Cartier, just check the private collection. What is the % of watches with a saphir back? MOST of them... So why do you have a saphir back on these watches and not on the basic lines of Cartier? I expect a reply as you know all about horological area. [quote]They don't just stamp Cartier on it and put it in the watch, they do additional finishing. What do they do so complicated that over much cheaper brands don't do? Explain me please...
Based on that logic, the IWC Grande Complication is overpriced because the movement (base Valjoux 7750) can be found on watches worth $750, and you apply this without taking into consideration that the movement is greatly reworked.]
Yes and then? Of course it is, like most of watches. And cartier is one of the more overpriced. Quartz or auto, the fact that it is overpriced remains. But as you told, the movement is REworked. In a Tank, it is not reworked but just trimmed. Just BASIC decoration.
First off, I did not say "˜MUCH BETTER'; please do not put words in my mouth. Secondly, I don't know how you did in math at school (I can guess), but based on your own argument:] A watch worth $1000 that uses a $5 movement is using a movement that is worth only 0.5% of the watches total value. Whereas a watch worth $4000 that uses a $120 movement is using a movement that is worth 3% of the watches total value. Seems like this watch is a "˜better value', no?
You told $5 was just an exemple to illustrate... So why are you stucking to your Â $5 ? The fact is you told you would never buy a quartz watch above $1000. But you could buy an auto watch with a $100 movement. So explain me WHY? I guess it is because quartz is in your mind cheaper and you don't wanna pay just for the case and bracelet. But the problem is that you can apply the same logic to basic cheap auto watches... I am not sure that a watch with a movement cheaper than a good croco strap is so much a good value...